Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 7 Comments

Thank you . . .


I really appreciate all the great thoughts and prayers you’ve sent our way.  It’s quite encouraging to know that there are people with hearts still on the planet (you wouldn’t know, based on the evening news sometimes).


Several of you mentioned the pups would help — and you were right.  Last night, AJ and I settled in for the evening . . . he in his recliner and me on the couch . . . each with a black puppy under one arm for comfort.  They are so sweet and I think Sydney would be proud of how loving they were to a couple of wounded people-pups.


The profile pic to the left is of Tina.  She’s got a magnolia seed pod in her chompers.  They’re all over the yard and she loves to chomp, chomp, chomp on them.  She’s rather partial to pecans, too.   Odd dog.  Just the way we like ’em.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 7 Comments

She’s gone.


The vet called later in the day with an update.  It became apparent to him that she had suffered a spinal cord injury in the neck area, and even if she recovered from the more obvious wounds, she would be paralyzed — unable to walk or relieve herself without assistance.


AJ and I went out to the clinic about 3:30 p.m. and said our goodbyes.  We told her how much we loved her and spent a few minutes with her and then they gave her a shot and she went to sleep for good.


I wish you could have known my doggie.  A better pup there never was.  Her parents belonged to one of the groomsmen from our wedding.  We’d gone over to his house for a July 4th cookout in 1993.  There were all these roly-poly puppies!  So sweet.  And the runt of the litter was Sydney.  I fell in love with her that second.  David was selling them for $250 each, but AJ worked a deal with him — he’d help David build a pole-barn for his horses in exchange for Sydney.


I read an article one time that said Australian Shepherd puppies are put in a pen and observed for natural herding instincts.  The puppies with the strongest instinct are the ones chosen for training as ranch dogs.  Sydney would have been at the top of her class, had she had the opportunity.   At one point we had four other dogs:  a German Shepherd, a Weimaraner/Lab mix, a Cocker  Spaniel, and a Pomeranian.  We observed more than once Sydney literally herding the other dogs around the backyard!  She was incredibly smart.


When we decided to have a people baby (that would be Jami), we knew we had to thin out the pet population if we were going to be able to afford people baby food.  Sydney and our Pomeranian, Logan, stayed with us, while the other dogs went to good homes.  Logan passed away almost five years ago — old age reasons.  I wish Sydney could have had an old age death, too.


Thank you for all your thoughts and prayers.  I’m going to be weepy for a while . . . I don’t handle these things well at all.  But I know we made the right decision, as painful as it was.  It’s kind of odd how things work out . . . about three months ago, two new puppies joined our family — Lab/Border Collie mixes.  I can’t help but wonder if part of the reason they came to us was to help ease this loss a little bit.  No one will ever take her place, but it lightens the heart a little bit to see these pups rolling on the living room floor.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 5 Comments

I would appreciate it if you all would pray for my dog, Sydney . . .


This morning, my dog was hit by a  car.  We always let our Australian Shepherd, Sydney, outside for a bit in the mornings . . . I run Jami down the street to school (a mere 1/2 mile away) and when I get back, I let the dog back in.  Well, this morning as I was about to turn into our driveway, I noticed a truck further down the road going around something in the middle of the road.  I don’t know why, but I knew almost immediately that it was Sydney.


I raced down there, put on my hazards and hopped out to get her.  She was lying on her side, blood bubbling around her nose.  A neighbor coming from the other direction stopped and got out to help me.  I couldn’t tell how badly she was hurt, but Richard managed to pick her up and lay her across the back seat of my pickup truck.  I went straight to the vet’s, no purse, no driver’s license, no nothing.  Just me and Syd.


When we got there, the office was still closed.  Our vet actually has a mobile clinic (http://www.mobilevetbc.com/), with a physical address where he operates a kennel and recovery clinic for animals with lengthy recoveries their families may not feel qualified to care for.  The driveway to the clinic is long and there’s a gate across the entrance.  I started to head for our vet’s house, but then thought better of it, since we might pass each other enroute.  So I turned off the truck and jogged down the length of the drive to see if there was anyone at the clinic.  No such luck.


I walked next door to see if I could borrow the phone.  An elderly gentleman (probably 80 – 85) answered the door.  Hard of hearing, but he was very kind and let me call Dr. Suazo.  Dr. Suazo said that his staff should be arriving shortly and he would be there as quickly as possible.


By the time I’d gotten back to the truck, Amanda was pulling up in the drive.  She opened the gate and we both trucked it down to the clinic.  She carried Sydney inside and began stabilizing her with medications for shock and by warming her with a heating pad and towels.  I tried to stay out of the way, but she looked so helpless lying on the metal treatment table. 


Dr. Suazo arrived and looked her over.  He said that she had no apparent injuries to her body, but that she must have taken the hit head-on.  It appeared the impact was on the left side of her head.  He told me that they’d given her something for pain and enough steroids for a horse (to control inflammation).  He said it was a good sign that she’d lasted this long, and really all that could be done now was to wait and see how she responded. 


He encouraged me that they’ve seen several patients hit by cars recently that had similar injuries and that they’d recovered.  So . . . hopefully, she will be like them.


I called a while ago for an update and they said she was still stable and that her temperature was normal.  I’m going to call again in a bit to see how she’s doing.


This old girl is eleven years old.  We got her when she was a puppy — July 1993.  AJ helped a friend build a pole barn for his horses to pay for her.  She’s so sweet and she doesn’t act old at all.  I will be so sad if she doesn’t make it.  Please, please keep her in your prayers.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 8 Comments

When a friend is unjustly accused, I feel a strong need to set the record straight . . .


In the last few weeks leading up to the Christmas holiday, Miss O’Hara has been utilizing her gifts to promote charities that she felt were worthy causes — in hopes of encouraging others to (a) encourage their own readers to think of others during this season, and (b) dig a little deeper and give time, talent, and/or money to any or all of these causes.  She was very clear to state that if any of her readers had their own “pet” causes, to please recommend them and not feel obligated to only support the causes she had listed on her own blog.


When visible response was not what she had hoped for/expected, she got discouraged and vented on her blog.  Apparently this irritated some readers, because apparently Miss O’Hara’s blog is not hers to do with as she will.  Apparently, a gentle reminder to think of others, cloaked in the structure of a charity drive, is one of the unforgivable sins.  (Yes, I know I used apparently three times in two sentences . . .)


One particularly venomous writer said the most hateful things, accusing Miss O’Hara of ugliness that those of us who’ve read her for any length of time know to be false.  Granted, there is such a thing as free speech, because we do live in the United States.  But free speech crosses a line when it makes unsubstantiated accusations against someone and even goes further to omit facts in order to slant public opinion in its favor.


I made comments to this blogger regarding her unfair representation and she posted the following to my comments section:


I’m not going to apologize for having an opinion different from yours.  If you don’t agree with me you can either make an argument to illustrate your position or you can choose to say nothing.  I won’t tolerate anything else.

Posted 12/6/2004 at 8:35 PM by Savantelle

 

Well, first of all — I didn’t ask this person to have the same opinion as me.  I didn’t ask her to agree with Miss O’Hara’s charity drive.  My beef with her is that she accused Miss O’Hara of receiving kickbacks from the charities she was promoting when she had absolutely no proof of any such thing.  My beef with her is that she refuses to acknowledge that Miss O’Hara asked readers to suggest other charities, if they didn’t feel lead to support the ones Miss O’Hara listed.  My issue with her is that she claimed “Miss O’Hara “charitably” blocked her from her comments — a complete untruth as I read a comment posted by her on Miss O’Hara’s blog several hours after she made this accusation.  On top of that, this “bastion” of free speech proceeded to delete both of the comments I made on her blog.  Apparently (Gosh, I love that word), apparently, she can say whatever hateful and ugly things she wants, but when I commented that her twisting of truth was wicked . . . well, we can’t have that on the internet . . . so *DELETE*!  Apparently she can dish it out, but can’t take it.

 

My theory (notice I am careful to say theory, since I have only this person’s statements to base my thoughts on, and no hard documentation . . .) — my theory is that when Miss O’Hara vented her frustrations, it hit a little too close to home with this person and so she pitched a hissy fit of her own to protest.  The venom of her anger at Miss O’Hara seems to be somewhat in line with the old line “Me thinks thou dost protest too much . . .” 

 

Most people who give, and know in their hearts that they are doing what they need to be doing let the profusion of charity drive requests roll off their backs.  It’s junkmail.  If the charity drive requests irritate you so much, let me ask you this:

 

If you’ve done all your Christmas shopping, why don’t you scream at all the department stores and discount centers that continue to send you sales flyers asking you to come in and spend more?????????????  Don’t you feel guilty that you may not have bought quite enough gifts for all those on your list??????? 

 

Now, I’m sure someone will point out to me that the department stores don’t get angry when you toss their flyers in the trash.  Well — maybe not in the same way that Miss O’Hara expressed her frustration . . . but I’ve worked Christmas help at the mall before, and trust me . . . those of you who are a little bit on the rude side and can’t take two seconds to exchange pleasantries with the person that you just made climb over three piles of boxes in the back of a crowded stockroom to get a small figurine, which you then decided “actually isn’t as cute as you thought it was when you saw it in the display case” . . . well, what Miss O’Hara said is much nicer than what the dusty, disheveled, and exhausted sales clerk says about you after you’ve gone.

 

I hope my argument satisfactorily illustrates that Savantelle manipulates the facts to suit her position (check out her blog — under “expertise” she lists manipulation), with a complete disregard for truth.  As for the “I won’t tolerate anything less” comment . . . well, her tolerance isn’t really an issue as I don’t think she has much control over the free realm of Blogdom.  Thank heavens we can all post our comments so that when people like this get out of control, we’re able to correct the record for those who will listen to reason and truth.

 

And if you’ve stuck with me this long, ask my husband — I have an extremely hyper-developed sense of justice and that’s why I’ve stuck my finger in this pie.  I just couldn’t stand by and let that person slander someone whom I consider to be a friend . . .

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 5 Comments

So much to do . . . and Ben Shapiro explores a significant public commentary regarding family-friendly entertainment:


I’m feeling very melancholy right now.  I think I’m overwhelmed by the holidays and all the accompanying prep that must go into it.  I asked my husband last night “do you think we will ever have a quiet, peaceful Christmas?” and he said


DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.  IT’S TOO DEPRESSING KNOWING IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.



A “quick” rundown on what’s ahead for us —


Dec. 2 — Rework quote for potential customer (not real optimistic about this one), laundry, cleaning house, install vertical blind for school district, Jami’s choir sings tonight at “Holiday on the Brazos” . . .


Dec. 3 — CLEAN HOUSE in prep for tomorrow.  Fix fabulous foods for tomorrow.  Bathe dogs.  CLEAN HOUSE.  CLEAN HOUSE.  CLEAN HOUSE.


Dec. 4 — Birthday party for my guy.  Was supposed to be a surprise, but the logistics forced me to spill the beans.  The theme, WILL, however be a surprise.  Look for an update as I’m very excited about this, even with the stress involved!


Dec. 9 — Jami’s choir sings at “Christmas in the Park”. 


Dec. 10 — 4-H Christmas party.


Dec. 12 — Goe Harley Motorcycle Toy Ride


Dec. 13 — Jami’s choir sings at “Christmas Extravaganza”.


Dec. 18 — AJ’s grandmother’s 90th birthday party.


          This is where it gets a little hairy.  I got the dates of her party mixed up and told my sister that I would ride with her to San Antonio to get the puppy that she’s giving her kids for Christmas.  So she’s going to try to see if a girl at work will switch shifts with her so we can go on Sunday.  If she won’t, then I will have to make an appearance at the party and then we’ll leave about 3 pm and probably won’t get home until 2 or 3 am.  (It’s a 5-hour drive one way.)  Pray that the girl will switch with her!


Dec. 23 — Christmas with AJ’s mom and step-dad.


Dec. 25 — Christmas at home in the a.m., Christmas with AJ’s dad and step-mom in the p.m.


Dec. 26 — Christmas with my mom, sister, and kids.


IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE MUCH WHEN YOU TYPE IT ALL OUT.  But, the thing is — in between all this stuff I still have to meet with clients, install products, try to finish the Christmas gifts I’m making and search resourcefully for affordable gifts I can’t make . . .


          Yes.  I’m whining.


My husband would say, “You’d get a lot more done if you’d get off your blog.”


He’s a list man.  Makes a list and works his way through it until everything is completed.  Except he keeps adding things to the bottom of the list, so he’s never really done.  But he does get things done.


I’m a type-A procrastinator.  I want it all done well, perfectly well, but I put it off because I’m worried about doing it well.  And so I stress about the things I need to do.  It’s a bloody blessing that my blood pressure runs on the low side, or as my mom and husband have said before, “You’d probably have a heart attack.”


Well, enough procrastinating.  I need to get to work. 


But before I do, please read the following column.  Ben Shapiro gives us hope that the majority of Americans are decent people who prefer family-friendly entertainment (could it be their VALUES?).  (My question is, if there are soooooo many homosexuals out there, why aren’t they supporting this movie with their $$$?  According to them, there are millions of them, and you’d think they would have sold out box offices for this flick . . .)


Oliver Stone’s ‘Alexander’ is behind the times
Ben Shapiro (archive)

December 1, 2004


    Oliver Stone had a really rotten week.  His huge-budget epic drama “Alexander,” starring Colin Farrell, Angeline Jolie, Val Kilmer, and Anthony Hopkins, premiered to critical raspberries and popular apathy.  “Alexander” reportedly cost over $150 million to make, and over the five-day Thanksgiving weekend, it garnered a mere $21,837,517, finishing sixth at the box office.


    In all likelihood, Warner Bros., which produced the film, will still recoup its costs, despite the probability that “Alexander” won’t come close to $100 million in domestic grosses.  Europeans are expected to turn out in high numbers to see the Macedonian wunderkind; they turned out en masse to see the American box office flop “Troy” as well.


    What was the hold-up for American audiences?  It wasn’t the nearly three-hour running time – remember, each movie in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy ran over 178 minutes, with the most successful of the trilogy, “The Return of the King,” running at well over three hours.  It wasn’t the critical coolness toward Stone’s pet project – several of the movies that finished above Stone’s at the box office last weekend were critically panned (although none to the extent of this disaster).


    A large part of “Alexander”’s downfall is attributable to the moral distastefulness of the subject matter.  Alexander the Great is played as a mop-top, indecisive bisexual by Farrell.  During the course of the movie, Farrell kisses a eunuch full on the mouth, and exchanges numerous lingering glances with boyhood chum and grown-up gay lover Hephaiston (played by an eye-liner-wearing Jared Leto).  Anthony Hopkins, playing Ptolemy, intones: ““It was said . . . that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion’s thighs.”


    This stuff doesn’t go over well with most Americans.  Frankly, we don’t want to hear about it, and we’re definitely not going to pay money to see it.  Critics love films with homosexuality, but very few of those films go on to see great popular success.  Since 1994, 17 actors and actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing gay characters; meanwhile, every movie nominated for an Oscar since 1994 containing substantial homosexuality has fallen well-below the $100 million mark, except for “As Good As It Gets” and “American Beauty,” both of which were fueled by Oscar hype.


    You can sense how much the critics wanted to love “Alexander,” too, primarily for its exploration of bisexuality, despite the fact that the movie is simply awful.  Manohla Dargis of the New York Times ripped into the film, but praised Stone’s portrayal of Alexander’s homosexual tendencies: “There are moments in ‘Alexander’ that show Mr. Stone in fine form, including . . . the aching tenderness between the ruler and his longtime lover, Hephaistion . . .”


    Meanwhile, most of the critics complained that “Alexander” failed because it didn’t do enough with Alexander’s sexuality.  Desson Thomas of the Washington Post complains that “Alexander’s homosexual side is only bashfully explored . . . . There are no thighs, just whispers.”  Likewise, Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe writes, “The nervous handling of the important relationship [between Alexander and Hephaiston] lays an absurd emotional dead spot over the picture’s overblown finale.”


    Unfortunately for the critics – and Stone — the cultural pendulum has begun to swing toward traditional morality again.  The five films that beat “Alexander” to a pulp were: “National Treasure,” “The Incredibles,” “Christmas With The Kranks,” “The Polar Express,” and “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie.”  These films were rated, respectively, PG, PG, PG, G and PG.


    These are all family friendly fare.  That’s what Americans want to see nowadays.  That’s why Sharon Stone whined that social conservatism prevented the filmmakers from approving a lesbian kiss between her and Halle Berry in “Catwoman”:  “Halle’s so beautiful, and I wanted to kiss her. I said, ‘How can you have us in the movie and not have us kiss? It’s such a waste.’ But that’s what you get for having George Bush as president.”  That’s why Wayne Llewellyn, president of distribution at Paramount, blamed “Alfie”’s flop on President Bush’s re-election: “It seems to be the result of the election. Maybe they didn’t want to see a guy that slept around.”


    With the shift in social values currently underway, here are a few predictions: “Brokeback Mountain”(2005), starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger as gay cowboys, will be a critical favorite but a box office dud.  So will “Brideshead Revisited”(2005) starring Jude Law and Paul Bettany as love interests.  Meanwhile, anything Pixar puts out will do big business.  Note to Hollywood: welcome to the backlash you inspired.  Hope you enjoy it as much as we do!




©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 2 Comments

And here it is:


I’ve been letting this topic percolate for a while, and I’ve decided to just jump in the deep end and put my thoughts down. I may ramble, I may mumble, but it could be next year before I put anything down if I wait for the guidance of an eloquent muse. Please bear with me . . .


When I was a child of 11, our nation was preparing to celebrate a most momentous birthday . . . 200 years since the beginning of a great experiment, perhaps one of the greatest experiments ever conducted. Born on July 4, 1776, America was an incredibly young nation compared to others around the globe and yet . . . so special, so incredibly unique . . .


I was a sixth-grader that year and little distracted me from all the happenings, both great and small, in preparation for the biggest birthday party the world had ever seen. Much of what I remember is in bits and blips (I am 40 years old, after all, and a good deal has happened since then!). I remember people painting the fire hydrants near their homes to resemble the militia men of the American Revolution. There were commemorative coins minted (I believe the quarter depicted a drummer with a tricorn hat and the years “1776 – 1976”), special programs on television (one children’s program aired each Saturday and told the stories of famous American Revolutionaries such as Deborah Sampson, Crispus Attucks and many others), and “Bicentennial Minutes” highlighted historical events leading up to our independence each evening before the primetime programs began.



There was a great deal of focus at school on the significance of this year. We put on a play, complete with powdered wigs and mop caps, and I will never forget “Benjamin Franklin” admonishing the rest of my classmates that “we should all hang together, or else we shall all hang separately!” Also “John Hancock” signing the Declaration with a big flourish so “King George can read it without his specs!” In history we learned of the risks taken by these brave men to build a nation where its citizens could truly be free. And most of us were truly thankful for this birthday gift that had been so carefully crafted and wrapped for us two centuries before.


I think back and wonder if the difference between then and now is that we were taught to be proud of our heritage, and thankful for the gift of a nation that, while still not perfect, provides the freedom to continually strive for a more perfect nation.


Now, it seems we are constantly apologizing for the success that is America. And before someone starts ranting and raving about the “dismal failure” that is America, let me say . . .


SHUT UP!


We’ve made our mistakes, for sure. But is there any nation on the planet that hasn’t made a mistake now and then? It seems to me that the younger generation (younger than myself), has taken on almost an abusive “parent” role. Let me explain . . .


America is young as nations go. Maybe somewhat like a teenager. Now, tell me what teenager hasn’t made mistakes? A teenager may make mistakes, but if that teenager has a good heart . . . well, more often than not their conscience will get the best of them and they will try to do the right thing to make amends.


Liberals are like the abusive “parent.” No matter what that wayward teenager does to apologize, to make amends, that abusive parent is going to beat them over the head with their mistake. “You good-for-nothing, worthless, piece of crap. I don’t care that you did x, y, and z for the widow down the street! You really screwed up here and I’m NEVER going to let you forget it. In fact, I’m going to make sure that everyone knows what a sorry good-for-nothing you are and tell them all about this mistake of yours, because nothing else you’ve ever done or ever will do can erase this mistake of yours.”


And because the abusive parents run all over creation complaining about the waywardness of their teenager to anyone and everyone who will listen, before long the lie becomes “truth” and everyone believes that the teenager is a good-for-nothing bum who’s never done a decent thing a day in her life.


It breaks my heart, because I know in my heart what a wonderful country this is. Despite the comments of those who, like the abusive parents, would have us all believe that America is not special, is not good-for-anything – I know in my heart of hearts that this is the most wonderful country to live in and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else on the planet (unless, of course, Hillary returns to the White House – then I’m outta’ here).

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 1 Comment

 


I’m still percolating on that post I mentioned, but in the meantime, this should tickle your funny bone . . . I know it did mine —







You Know You’re From Texas When…
You see more Texan flags than American flags.

You know someone who ate the 72 oz steak and got it for free.

You attend a formal event in your best clothes, your finest jewelry, and your Cowboy Boots.

You can write a check at Dairy Queen for 2 Hungr-Busters and fries.

You prefer Whataburger to McDonalds.

You dress up to go shopping at the mall.

You’ve hung ornaments and tinsel on a tumbleweed and used it as a Christmas tree.

You’re disappointed when a food doesn’t come in spicy flavor.

You know from experience that rattlesnake meat tastes like chicken.

You can tell a rock from an armadillo at 300 yards.

You know what a ‘Cowboy Cadillac’ is.

You have both a dog and a brother-in-law named Bud

Your local grocery store sells cactus in the Fresh Produce department

You watch the movie Urban Cowboy and laugh at the phony Texan accents

You choose a brand of Mexican salsa with the same care that another might use to select a bottle of fine wine

You think that the 4 basic food groups are nachos, bar-b-que, fajitas, and Copenhagen.

You refer to the Dallas Cowboys as “God’s favorite football team”

You know whether another Texan is from South, West, East, North, or Central Texas as soon as they open their mouth.

You don’t consider people from Austin to be real Texans.

Your Pastor wears boots.

There is no such thing as a “secret” sin.

The Blue Book value on your truck goes up and down depending on how much gas it has in it.

You actually get these jokes and pass them on to other friends from Texas.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 1 Comment

An excellent article:


The making of the Christian-jihadist myth
Kathleen Parker


November 17, 2004


Following days of spin and commentary, we can confidently declare a new urban legend: George W. Bush was elected by right-wing, science-hating, vengeful Christian zealots – “revved up by rectitude,” as one pundit put it – and America is embarked on a hatchet-wielding jihad against heathens, pagans and infidels.


Colorful. But then so is pollution in certain lights. It’s also wrong and awfully ignorant coming from the side of the political spectrum that considers itself the more intelligent segment of the American population. Not only did the right wing not elect Bush – only slightly more evangelical Christians (5 percent) voted for Bush this time around than in 2000 – but Bush himself is far to the left of the so-called “moral right.”


As former secretary of education William J. Bennett pointed out Monday in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, Bush’s election was a slightly-right-of-center mandate, rather than a far-right one. Of nearly 60 million votes for Bush, some 20 million came from evangelical Christians. The other 40 million votes came from others, including increased numbers of Jews, Catholics, blacks and Latinos.


Yet all the chatter in recent days is about those weird Christians and their bizarre “agenda.” Always preaching about duty to family, making a fuss about pornography and promiscuity, carrying on about homosexual marriage. What’s wrong with those people, anyway?


The media seem suddenly, if belatedly, obsessed, approaching the evangelical Christian voting block as anthropologist Margaret Mead did the Samoans. Chris Matthews suggested on “Hardball” that reporters should be sent out to cover the red states as one might a foreign country. You can imagine the scramble. Among least coveted assignments, embedding with Real Americans would be second only to spending August in Crawford, Texas.


Because I live in South Carolina, I’ve gotten a few calls myself from television and radio producers seeking insight. I feel like Jane Goodall being summoned from the hinterlands to report on the behavioral habits of the indigenous wildlife.


“Fascinating,”   I picture them saying as they stroke their chins. “They even go to church on Wednesdays, too? Whatever for?!”


Why, for the beheadings, of course. OK, I’m kidding. It’s the snakes.


Just as Samoan women are alleged to have lied to Mead about their freewheeling, premarital sex romps, red staters may be sorely tempted to offer exaggerated tales to curious intellectuals. They’re so cute when they’re perplexed. Alas, their own interpretations are sufficiently exaggerated without my help, as this typical reader e-mail suggests:



We will just have to adjust to a new world that was created in six days, where women were created from a man’s rib and where global warming does not exist according to science advisor Rush Limbaugh. Scientists like myself will just have to be wary of stakes with brush piled underneath, and suppress any sign of intellect while mumbling something about being saved and born again.


The urban myth has taken hold even among scientific minds, it seems. Yet objectively, the myth is holier than Peter’s net. Bush, though he identifies himself as an evangelical Christian, isn’t nearly as conservative as those on the far right might wish him to be, nor are Christian evangelicals all knuckle-dragging throwbacks. Last time I checked, not a single one had ordered the murder of an infidel. But you knew that.


Despite our near-pathological need to label and categorize, the United States isn’t really a far-left and a far-right country, bright red and bright blue. While such demographic labels are convenient for political debate – and indispensable to column writing – the fact is that most Americans dwell in that vast lavender (purple?) area in between.


In that middle, people are complex and hold a variety of views, some liberal, some conservative, depending on the issue. Most don’t cleave to an either-or position on even the hot-button issues. Many Americans still support a woman’s right to abortion, for instance, but think reasonable limits can be set without condemning women to life terms in the kitchen.


The debate, meanwhile, about whether “moral values” was the compelling force behind Bush’s victory seems slightly off point. Exit polls showing “moral values” as the most important issue for voters (22 percent cited it) were refuted subsequently by other polls, leading some to insist that the election wasn’t about values after all.


What they mean, probably correctly, is that the election wasn’t only about far-right concerns such as same-sex marriage, abortion and stem cell research. But of course it was about moral values – what’s right and what’s wrong, from war to national character – and the vote took us right of center.


As for Bush’s alleged “jihad,” only true jihadists have reason to protest. As Christopher Hitchens wrote, Bush fights religious fanaticism while the left apologizes for it. Amen to that.




©2004 Tribune Media Services

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 3 Comments

A comment that I felt needed to be brought to the forefront, as sometimes these things get lost as the comment chains get longer (plus I wanted to make sure it was read since sometimes people don’t always return to the comment chain to read subsequent posts):


USMCwife909, you’re not reading my comments very carefully because you’re only interested in telling me why I’m wrong.  I clearly stated that, and I quote my own words for the refreshment of your memory:


       It seems to me that James Madison, while speaking against establishment of religion by law, still managed to convey a missionary heart.  A heart that firmly believed in God and His commandments, but believed that each man must come to know God of his own free will. 


I am curious that you claim to be Christian, but then you say:


       Christians have a desperate need for some reason to claim our nation’s fathers as their own.


If you are Christian, wouldn’t you be part of that group?  Or are there two sets of Christians, and you belong to the open-minded, live and let live set?  I hate to tell you this, but no matter how you try to twist the words of many of the founders of our nation (Please note, I said MANY, not all.  Do not try to twist my words and say that I believe that ALL good men that helped formed our nation were Christian or think exactly as I do.  I NEVER said that.), this nation was founded on Christian principles, based on their very words.  They had a balanced view — the best foundation for our nation is one of Christian principles, but because they held the free will that God gave each and every man so precious, they promised to never establish a national religion.  It’s so obvious what Madison said — he believed in the light of Christianity, the existence of false religions (directly in conflict with modern day liberals who profess “god, whatever your concept of him or her may be”), and man’s free will to accept or reject the light of Christianity.  Yes, he was speaking against established state religion — but he was not denying his faith in doing so.


It’s a shame that you and so many others who profess to be Christian (and yet demonstrate so differently with your words and actions) twist the words of those who are dead and can’t speak for themselves.  And I am amused that you set yourself up as an authority — “the quote cannot be found in any of Madison’s original writings.”  Perhaps you just haven’t run across the document that contains it?  Why should I believe you?  I’m not going to bore my other readers with lengthy endnotes from Federer’s encyclopedia — I trust the volume and the copious amounts of research that went into it, and anyone who has questions regarding its veracity can research that on their own.