Afghanistan is not doing well, there are bombs in Iraq, Democrats are eating their own on health care, deficits are soaring, the white house is spamming Americans, and the Gay community is having enough of don’t ask don’t tell and even some reporters are wondering if president Obama has Floyd Patterson’s jaw. What is a democratic administration with filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a large majority in the house to do?

Why investigate the Bush Administration of course:

The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

This is the one thing that democrats can agree on. This has one purpose and one purpose only to distract their base from their failures. The question is will they fall for it?

Update: It made the hotair headlines.

Update 2: And gateway pundit

Update 3: Rush echos me today on the show today. Great minds think alike, I don’t know what my excuse is.

What is going on in healthcare illustrates the real difference between the Democratic and Republican Caucus.

The Republican Caucus is more homogeneous. There may be individual members with particular opinions or agendas but as a rule it is easier to hold together. They are united by a common set of basic values. That doesn’t mean they won’t violate them easily (as has been amply demonstrated) but the A smaller majority of republicans are can act is a single direction because they generally look in a single direction.

The Democratic Caucus is actually a conglomeration of many different groups, based on race, sexual preference, and others, quite a few of the anti-anti’s other groups from environmentalists, feminists, to pacifists, to socialists et /al.

The problem here is that some of these groups are by nature diametrically opposite of one other, For example the democrats for reasons I still can’t explain tend to get 90% of the black vote, but that same community is highly religious and mostly protestant. To expect that they were going to support Gay Marriage in California was very funny, but of course the left KNEW this but didn’t dare attack a member of the grand coalition so instead the Mormons and little old ladies with crosses were the target.

As the Hispanic (do the descendants of the former Spanish colonies of South America actually call themselves “Hispanic” or is that another term made up by us?) community increases democrats hope to gain votes, but these are also VERY Catholic people, a lot of them are better Catholics then what we have here now. They also come from a society that still celebrates the Macho. (have you every actually WATCHED Spanish language TV? Feminists would be marching in the streets over it if that was the fare on ABC, NBC, CBS et/al. It’s spike TV on steroids!)

Given this situation it is no wonder that democrats can’t get a bill out on their own. The various caucus have different beliefs, different agendas and most importantly different voting bases.

The actual fact is that the people in the safest districts are the biggest advocates of health care “reform” so they have the least to lose except in a primary. The problem is the leadership knows that a primary challenge in those districts will likely not hurt democratic prospects there.

They DO know that in the blue dog districts those seats ARE at risk, particularly in 2010 since the easiest time to unseat an incumbent is in their first bid for re-election.

Do you think the leadership is going to risk their Chairmanships in the house over this? I think not.

Last week for the table top baseball league I’m in I was playing over a friend’s house. They are very religious and have cards of many biblical quotes on the side of their walls. They are however both ex-Catholics and tend to tease about Holy Communion being a magic trick. So as you might guess John 6:53 doesn’t make the cut:

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

It’s a real peeve with me when people duck bits of the Gospel or the bible. Ironically today the ducking took place at many Masses and considering todays reading it’s quite ironic:

The first reading was from Joshua 24 the key verse being 15:

If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

Basically a “choose sides” reading, you’ve seen what things are make up your mind.

John Chapter 6 has been the focus of the gospel reading for the last month and we concluded this week with verses 60-69: For the purpose of this post we are only interested up to verse 62.

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? ”

Another choose sides, yeah it’s a tough saying can you handle it?

The theme of the sermon today was the Eucharist and it was a good one, but we never discussed today’s 2nd reading. It was Ephesins 5:21-33. We read the short form that omitted verses 22-24 they say:

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

Now three or four years ago we did the long form and our priest gave a great sermon on its meaning in context, but I couldn’t get over the irony that we skipped that verse when the theme of the Gospel today was getting over a “hard saying”. From what Fr. Tom Washburn had to say we were likely not alone in skipping it:

This is perhaps the most dangerous passage in all of Scripture to preach on, in fact, most preachers usually try and avoid it. But, I feel a little dangerous today, so let’s give it a try

He does almost as good a job as Father Bob when he tackled it the whole thing is here the key bit:

The problem with this phrase from Colossians, “Wives be subordinate to your husbands,” is that we tend to isolate that passage out and not look at the rest of the reading. Alone, this passage is troubling and seems to support a subjugation of women, but it is out of context. When we look at the bigger picture, we find not a chauvinistic household, but one that is balanced; not one where husbands lord authority over wives, but one where everyone is subordinate, or the servant, to the other. There are two keys to this reading – the first is the initial words we heard today, “Brothers and sisters, be subordinate to one another.” We are all called to be in that position of subordination to each other, deferring to each other, serving each other. So, if “wives be subordinate to your husbands” is true; then it is also true to say, “husbands be subordinate to your wives,” “children be subordinate to your parents,” “parents be subordinate to your children.” This reading doesn’t want to perpetuate a power dynamic, it wants to eliminate it; leaving in its wake a community of servants.

Context is everything, people tend to hear what they want so when for example the rules on Meatless Fridays are relaxed they hear the eating meat part but not the “substitute sacrifice“. Our protestant friends take John 6:53-56 metaphorically while ignoring the context that Jesus actually challenges them on it and loses disciples over it. People either attack or overemphasize Ephesians 22:24 and ignore the context to suit their agendas.

The Church and scripture can stand on it own two feet. If we try to gimmick it as the ECLA did to fill the seats our seats won’t be worth filling. No pulling a Yale and ducking.

Weather .com is really useful but come on…

Posted: August 23, 2009 by datechguy in oddities
Tags: ,

…do we really need the weather broken down every 15 minutes of the hour?

If I want to know the weather in 15 minutes I’ll look at the sky out the window.