DVD Review: Left Behind: World at War

It's been eighteen months since the mysterious disappearance of millions of people. The world has managed to recover from what the Bible refers to as the Rapture and 172 world governments have consolidated power in one Global Community under the leadership of Nicolae Carpathia (Gordon Currie) . On the surface, everything appears to be peaceful as nations have willingly laid down their arms in the name of world peace. President Gerald Fitzhugh (Lou Gossett, Jr.) has led the United States into this alliance - a decision he will soon regret. Vice President John Mallory (Charles Martin Smith) informs the President that Carpathia is about to unleash a biological weapon on the United States. Fitzhugh barely has time to let the news sink in before Mallory is assasainated and the United States is plunged into war. Fitzhugh turns to reporter Buck Williams (Kirk Cameron) and militia member Carolyn Miller (Jessica Steen) for help in trying to stop Carpathia before it's too late.

This third installment of the Left Behind movie series was surprisingly well done. The action is taught and the movie left me on the edge of my seat even when the characters would stop to pray. Christians are portrayed realistically without resorting to overused stereotypes. They are not fearless warriors of faith but rather human beings that are struggling to understand how God can allow war and death to continue to persist.

This installment also cleary benefits from the financial backing of Sony Pictures which was willing to support the film and provide the larger production budget necessary to create many of the special effects so well utilized through the film.

The filmmakers were also not afraid to also deal with the spiritual content which is clearly at the heart of the novels. The characters (particularly Fitzhugh) are on a spiritual journey that causes them to face danger head on and evaluate their lives in very spiritual terms.

Overall, this is a well-produced film and probably the best of the series thus far. Left Behind: World at War not only entertains but presents the truth of the Bible squarely in front of the audience and will no doubt cause careful self-examination by anyone who watches the film. Even those viewers unfamiliar with the books or previous films can still find this movie enjoyable.

Why We Celebrate Thanksgiving

As families all across America prepare this week to celebrate Thanksgiving, it's worth pausing to reflect on why we celebrate the holiday. This essay from Mark Alexander at the Federalist Patriot traces the history of the Thanksgiving holiday and why we should stop and thank God for the blessings we all enjoy.

From our family to yours, may you have a blessed and Happy Thanksgiving!

Douglas Gresham on Homeschooling

The Fall 2005 issue of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine includes an interview with Douglas Gresham, stepson of C. S. Lewis. While much of the conversation focuses on the upcoming Narnia movie and Gresham's relationship with Lewis, there is some frank discussion about Gresham's own strong support for homeschooling. Here is what Gresham had to say about homeschooling:

Homeschooling and why I advocate it is not a matter of whether the schools are good or bad, though obviously I would rather children went to good schools than to bad ones, if go to school they must. It is that, as someone who has been trained and works in the field of post-childhood abuse trauma, and has devoted considerable thought to the mattter, I have formed the opinion that the entire concept of school is flawed. In fact, it is a terrible mistake.

Look what we do: we observe what God has designed, a pair of parents, one of each
sex, and two pairs of grandparents, often with a few aunts and uncles thrown in. In fact, a Family. This is the unit designed by God Himself for the specific purpose of ministry of raising each new generation.

Then what do we do? We take the child and remove him from this carefully designed support group of parents and close family members, all of whom share a genetic bond with the child, and plunge him into a mass group of his peers, all of whom are as ignorant and as demanding as he is, with one adult stranger supervising. In terms of the psycho-emotional development of the child, this is complete madness.

A child is best nurtured by having the one-on-one attention from each of the two parents for a specific period of time each day. Ideally, a child should be homeschooled by both parents sharing the task equally, though I do realize that this is not always possible. Bear in mind that I am not referring to idiotic parents, criminal parents, drug-addicted parents, or self-indulgent, self-obsessed parents, nor to anyone else who should never be graced (in my view, not God's, of course) with progeny in the first place. I am referring to normal, well-adjusted, good parents. And with our modern habits of sending children away from their home and families for the better part of every day these [well-adjusted parents] are becoming more and more scarce as the vast majority of people are damaged or scarred emotionally and intellectually themselves by being exiled from their home and parents and placed in the hands of strangers at a young age.

It is a trans-generational progression exacerbated by the fact that those who are damaged very often are not even aware of it. If I had known back then what I know now, my children would never have gone to school until they were at least 18 years old. Satan hates what God loves and God loves us, Mankind. The basic unit of Mankind is the family, so Satan has targeted the Family, and he has been pretty successful, mostly by using "good intentions." I think that "School" is one of his very clever inventions. As far as I am concerned, schools are for fish.

(The Old Schoolhouse Magazine, Fall 2005 issue, page 57)

Well said.

Review: The Old Schoolhouse Magazine - Fall 2005

I just received the latest issue of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine and once again have been impressed by the depth and breadth of articles that they manage to put together in each issue. The Fall 2005 issue is packed with features that will be an encouragement to every homeschool family.

In this issue, there are a number of great features to help families become better homeschoolers. One of the main sections deals with "Finishing the Race" and focuses on how to homeschool your high school student. Another feature tells the story of one family's encounter with a social worker and offers tips on what to do when social services comes calling. There's encouragement for new homeschoolers and tips on how to get started and not be bound to old ideas of what school should be like. There are holiday craft and gift ideas as well as how to intergrate school with the holiday break. Best of all, there is an exclusive interview with Douglas Gresham, stepson of C. S. Lewis on the upcoming movie The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

The Old Schoolhouse Magazine is a valuable resource to any family who has chosed to educate their children at home. Packed with tips and product information as well as other resources, this quarterly magazine is a great tool that every home educator will want to have. I highly recommend this to anyone who has taken the initiative to educate their children at home.

The Old Schoolhouse Magazine is available at major bookstores or can be ordered through their website. No consideration was received for this review apart from the complimentary magazine.

Final Salute

Jim Sheeler and Todd Heisler at the Rocky Mountain News have published an incredible article entitled "Final Salute" that gives a close-up look at the task of the Marines' casualty assistance calls officer. This is a moving account well worth reading. Thanks to Tony in Boulder for the tip.

Congratulations Aaron

Please join me in congratulating my Two or Three.net colleague and fellow Mind and Media reviewer Aaron Earls who has just joined the fine group of bloggers at the World Magazine blog. Aaron also has The Wardrobe Door blog and is well deserving of this honor.

Judge Alito's Conservative Credentials

The Washington Post has a front page article today that tries to ease liberals fears about the possibility of Roe vs. Wade being overturned. But in fact the article only reinforces Judge Alito's conservative credentials. First, here's the misleading lead paragraph of the article:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. has signaled he would be highly reluctant to overturn long-standing precedents such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling, a move that has helped to silence some of his critics and may resolve a key problem early in the Senate confirmation process, several senators said yesterday.

At first glance, it would seem that Alito supports Roe. Reading further, it's clear that Alito is merely showing respect for the rule of law:

In private meetings with senators who support abortion rights, Alito has said the Supreme Court should be quite wary of reversing decisions that have been repeatedly upheld, according to the senators who said it was clear that the context was abortion.

"He basically said . . . that Roe was precedent on which people -- a lot of people -- relied, and been precedent now for decades and therefore deserved great respect," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) told reporters after meeting with Alito yesterday. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she had a similar conversation about an hour later with Alito, who has made clear that he personally opposes abortion.

"I asked him whether it made a difference to him if he disagreed with the initial decision but it had been reaffirmed several times since then," Collins told reporters. "I was obviously referring to Roe in that question. He assured me that he has tremendous respect for precedent and that his approach is to not overturn cases due to a disagreement with how they were originally decided."

Collins, Lieberman and others cautioned that they did not directly ask Alito if he would vote to overturn Roe, and that his comments should not be seen as a guarantee of how he may rule. But the conversations appear to be building Alito's resistance to what might be the biggest impediment to his confirmation: liberals' claims that he is a threat to legalized abortion, which most Americans support, according to opinion polls.

One of the hallmarks of conservative jurisprudence is the respect for precedent. This does not mean that every case decided by the Supreme Court is set in stone and can never be overturned. However, it also does not mean that cases can be overturned based on the whims of the judge, either.

Liberal judges are notorious for ignoring precendents and deciding cases based on their own agenda rather than on the facts and the law. Ironically, it's liberals who are making the case that precendents need to be respected especially when it fits their political agenda. Once again, the hypocrisy of the Left is apparent.

But conservatives, especially pro-lifers, didn't help their cause during the debate over Harriet Miers' by insisting on a judge that would state they would overturn Roe. Judicial activism that ignores precedent is never justified even if the goal is admirable.

Respect for the rule of law is what helps maintain an orderly society. Judge Alito clearly respects the rule of law. He should make a terrific Supreme Court Justice.

Election Day 2005 - Virginia Governor's Race

Much is being made of today's gubernatorial election here in Virginia as a bellwhether of the 2006 and 2008 elections. The Virginia electorate is almost evenly divided between urban and rural areas and as a result is thought by many to be a good predictor of national electoral trends. Since the state went for President Bush last year by nine points there is a feeling that this election will be a referendum on his presidency. Whether that's really the case is at best debatable.

If Democrat Tim Kaine wins today, it will be in part because of help he has received from popular Governor Mark Warner. Warner is himself a possible 2008 Presidential candidate. And while he is on the surface an attractive candidate, his popularity is in part due to a Republican-controlled General Assembly that worked closely with him to get his legislative agenda enacted. That will likely allow him to portray himself as somone who can work with both parties in the general election. Given these factors, Kaine should have been able to build a large lead. However, the race remains a statistical dead heat.

Whoever wins today will claim that this result will somehow show how next year's congressional elections should play out. I wouldn't bet on it.

Daddypundit Will Return.....

We're away on vacation for the next several days. We don't have reliable internet access where we are plus our computer chose this particular time to crash. I have the feeling that these events were by God's design and for a specific purpose. I'll have more to share about that as well as our other travel adventures when I return. Regular blogging will resume on November 7th.

Miers Withdraws

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.

While the mainstream media will try to paint this as a defeat for President Bush, this actually relieves him of the pressure from conservatives to withdraw her nomination and allows him to nominate someone who is more likely to gain wider support from conservatives. Ms. Miers mave have done the President a huge favor. It will be interesting to see who the President decides to nominate next. Whoever the next nominee is, it's a safe bet the confirmation process will still be ugly.

Book Review: The Thinking Toolbox

Before I began reading The Thinking Toolbox by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn I decided to conduct a little experiment. Since the book is supposed to be for children age 13 through adult, I decided to allow my daughters (who are 10 and 8 and both avid readers) to take a look at the book and give me their impressions of it. Was it a book they would want to buy if the saw it at a bookstore? Did it interest them? Little did I know that I was going to be causing a fight as both of them were immediately drawn to the book and decided to read it on their own.

This experience at least proved to me what I suspected when I first received the book: that the Bluedorns had done a great job of making logic fun and entertaining which is not necessarily an easy thing to do. In fact, when I think about a logic textbook I think of something that is dry and boring to read. The Thinking Toolbox is anything but boring.

The book is divided into four sections:  tools for thinking, tools for opposing viewpoints, tools for science, and projects you can complete to help reinforce the principles taught throughout the book. Each lesson is brief and ends with a practical exercise to help the reader understand how to apply the principle that is being taught.

This book can either be read individually or as a group and can easily be incorporating into a classroom or homeschool setting. Anyone who invests in this book will be picking up a valuable resource that will help them not just understand logic but how to apply a biblical worldview to thinking tasks.

The Thinking Toolbox is published by Christian Logic and was provided to me for review through Mind and Media. No consideration was received for this review apart from the book.

I Support the Miers Nomination

Ever since Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court was announced, I've been sitting on the fence trying to decide whether to support the President's choice. Since N. Z. Bear has issued a call to conservative bloggers to take a stand on this issue, I figured it was time to finally make up my mind. I am supporting the Miers' nomination.

This is not a decision that I have made lightly. Early on, I wrote about reservations I had about how Ms. Miers' faith was being used as the primary criteria for supporting her nomination. I'm still troubled by prominent evangelicals such as James Dobson, Charles Colson, Pat Robertson, and others who have been mixing faith with politics especially on this issue. I do not believe it is wise for evangelicals to seek political power in and of itself. But I also do not believe that a faith test is proper, either. Just because someone professes to be an Evangelical Christian disqualifies them from public service.

There is no doubt that this nomination has not been handled properly by the White House. I have no doubt that they were not prepared for the backlash within their own party that they have received. But I don't understand how Republicans can honestly believe they can oppose this nomination and not pay a political price.

I also understand the frustration of fellow conservatives who had wished the President had nominated someone else. Many names of qualified judges were tossed around following Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. My own personal preference was for the President to nominate Judge Janice Rogers Brown. I relished the idea of Democratic Senators trying legitimately oppose her nomination particularly when they have regularly relied on overwhelming support of African-Americans in winning elections. But the reality is that the nomination of someone like Judge Brown (or a Hispanic candidate such as Miguel Estrada or even Alberto Gonzales) would simply politicize the nomination process. It's messy enough without making a nomination simply to score political points.

I even understand the desire of some of Ms. Miers' critics to know more about her position is on certain issues, particularly abortion. But the fact is that abortion is only one issue in a broad range of issues that the Supreme Court will decide. In reality, a good judge should be evaluating cases based on the facts and the law, not their own feelings about a particular issue. I am honestly more concerned about learning more about how Ms. Miers will approach her job as an Associate Justice than her opinion on any number of high-profile decisions that have been handed down over the years by the Supreme Court.

I know in taking this stand that I am in direct opposition to many of my fellow conservatives. I honestly haven't read their opinions so I don't know how well-reasoned their opposition to Ms. Miers might be. They may simply be opposing her nomination for any or all of the reasons I've outlined above.

My support for Ms. Miers does not have anything to do with Hugh Hewitt's or any other blogger's support for the nomination. However, this post from Hugh is probably one of the best written arguments I've read thus far in support of her nomination.

My support for Ms. Miers is also not a cheap ploy for more traffic even though I've noticed from the traffic reports that lots of visitors to this blog of late have been searching for a post on Ms. Miers.

Why, then, would I go out on a limb and support Ms. Miers? It comes down to this: I trust the President when it comes to judicial nominees. It is the one area where he has consistently proven himself capable of making wise choices. Since I don't know Ms. Miers personally or anything about her judicial philosophy or personal convictions I have no choice but to decide whether to trust the person nominating her.

This President has made tough choices before. He's not afraid to make unpopular or politically risky decisions (e.g. stem cell research, Iraq, Social Security reform to name a few). A lesser man would have folded like a cheap tent in the face of the vicious political rhetoric this President has had to face on a daily basis. Even when I disagree with President Bush on certain issues (illegal immigration, runaway federal spending) I still admire his willingness to stick to his guns. A man willing to take such risks does not rush into decisions. I have no doubt that he has thought through (and I would even venture to guess carefully prayed through) the issue before taking a stand. A man willing to display such leadership is worthy of my unwavering support.

If Ms. Miers' nomination is defeated, it will not be because the President made a bad choice. It will not even be because the White House did not properly manage the nomination process. It will be because Republican Senators did not follow their leader as they should have. And if that leads to political defeat in 2006, 2008, or beyond then the Republican Party will get exactly what they deserve for not following their leader.

It's My Blogiversary!

Actually, it was two days ago but I thought it was today. I had been going by the Sitemeter at the bottom of the page which has been counting visitors since October 24, 2004. But according to my first post, I started this blog on October 22, 2004. So October 22nd would truly be my blogiversary.

Anyway, it's been an interesting trip so far with this blog. When I first started the blog, I was primarily focused on political matters since we were in the throes of the 2004 election cycle. But as time moved on, I've branched out to post on all sorts of other topics that I hadn't even considered when I started. In fact, this blog has become so much more than I imagined that it's amazing to see what has happened in this past year. In addition to getting to know a whole host of bloggers from literally all over the world (see the Blog Friends list in the sidebar and you'll know what I mean) there have been a bunch of other great highlights:

• Becoming a book reviewer through Mind and Media
• Becoming a member of Blogcritics
• Having a book plug published
• Being quoted in a magazine article
• Being able to correspond with authors of books I've been reviewing
• Interviewing an actress
• Starting a group blog, Two or Three.net
• Joining the team at Stones Cry Out
• Being involved in blog swarms around hot news stories such as Terri Schiavo, Eason Jordan, Hurricane Katrina relief, and Harriet Miers.
• Hosting the Christian Carnival and getting to know other great bloggers

All of this is quite amazing to me that I have been allowed to do so much with this little blog. I am truly blessed to have had so many opportunities thus far. I appreciate everyone who has come to visit over the past year and has cared anything at all about what I've had to say. Thank you for your continued support. I look forward to seeing what's in store for the blog this next year.

Interview: Jennifer Ehle

Jennifer Ehle is probably best known for her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet in the 1995 miniseries Pride and Prejudice. Although she often believed to be British, she actually was born and raised in North Carolina. Both her parents are well-known. Her father, John Elhe, is a novelist while her mother, Rosemary Harris is an acclaimed actress.

This past summer, Ms. Ehle appeared on the London stage opposite Kevin Spacey in The Philadelphia Story. As the production was nearing the end of its run, Ms. Ehle agreed to answer questions from fans and bloggers submitted through the Jennifer Ehle Fan Blog. In all, 135 questions were submitted and she was gracious enough to answer almost all of them. Click here to read the entire interview. Here are my questions along with her answers:


Given the popularity of Pride and Prejudice when it first appeared, it would have been natural to expect you to try to capitalize on its success with your subsequent roles. However, it seems that you went out of your way to try not to be typecast in the same type of roles as Elizabeth Bennet. Can you share how you selected the roles you accepted after Pride and Prejudice and whether a fear of typecasting played a part in those selections?

~ When Pride and Prejudice came out September of ‘95, I was already working at the RSC and under contract with them till February of ‘96 — so there was nothing I could have done to ‘capitalize’ on the show’s success then, even if I had wanted to.
It suited me perfectly to be unavailable; and to sit tight and wait out the hoopla.
Once I was released from the RSC, I just continued to do what I always had done, which was to take the most interesting (to me) jobs that I was offered. This has changed a little now that I have a family — and am open again to working — but it has not changed a great deal. Now it has to be the most interesting job that is also interesting enough to ask my family to commit to.
I do not feel as though I have ever been type cast. The women I have been lucky enough to play have been complex enough to allow me to use a varied pallet. Although I have played a few women whom I think of as ‘warmth-exuders’ who stand by their men — they have been quite varied apart from having that quality in common.

One of the wonderful aspects of Pride and Prejudice is the relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and her father (portrayed by Benjamin Whitrow). Can you tell us about the chemistry between the two of you and how it affected your portrayal of Elizabeth? Does the relationship between these two characters in any way reflect your relationship with your own father?

~ I really enjoyed filming the father/daughter scenes with Ben. It was one of my very favorite bits of the filming. They were shot right at the start of the five month shoot and so, I was not yet exhausted — and they were done all in a clump, with just the two of us there.
The relationship between Mr. Bennet and Lizzie was always my favorite part of the book. It was, for me growing up, the love story in the book; and I would weep whenever I reread it and would get to the bit where Lizzie tells Mr. Bennet that Darcy is the best man she has ever known. It is such an important part of the whole female fantasy of the story — the favorite daughter who idolizes her father above all men and then, when he fails to protect Lydia
from herself, is exposed as a mere human being.
Then, and only then, is the young woman free to find her own mate and open her heart to him.

Of the following men from Pride and Prejudice- Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley or Mr. Bennet- which would you want your son to grow up to be like and why?

~ These are the options?! It’s amazing the species continues.

You mentioned in an interview that the only role that would take you away from your family would be Tracy Lord in The Philadelphia Story. How have your career choices changed as a result of getting married and having a son?

~ Well, when I met my husband, I knew that I wanted to pay full attention to this relationship. I had not enjoyed acting for a lot of my twenties and wanted to step away and see how that felt; to see if the desire to act would return in full.
So as soon as my commitments exhausted themselves (Possession and Design For Living) I took that time.
Three years later, I was curious to see how it would feel to act again and it was fine. I liked it, but still wasn’t sure.
Now, four-and-some years on from ‘walking away,’ I am really enjoying it and have not felt this unambivalent about working for at least a decade. It’s fun being an actress. Who knew?

How much influence did your parents have on you in your choice of acting as a career? How much has your mother influenced you particularly in your career as a stage actress?

~ While most kids may be asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” — the question always put to me was, “Are you going to be an actress or a writer?” — and I really never did consider anything else as a possibility. Having grown up with parents in these quite bohemian, joyous, autonomous careers, I do not see why I would ever have looked much further.

How did you prepare for the role of Tracy Lord? She seems very over-the- top compared to your previous roles that are far more understated. Have you had a chance to see the film and if not do you plan to see it?

~ Still haven't seen the Grant/Hepburn movie. I’m sure I will one day.

The most important question any North Carolina native should answer: which do you prefer - Eastern or Western North Carolina barbecue and why?

~ I don’t know! I don’t know! Oh, help.
I would imagine I have never even had Eastern. Have not had a lot of BBQ, because my Mother is involved in reforming the way pigs are farmed so we avoid factory-farmed pork as a rule. But did I mention her cheese grits?

This interview is covered by Creative Commons License.

A New Blog from Nancy Pearcey

Nancy Pearcey, author of the award-winning book Total Truth (and one of my favorite writers) has started her own blog with her husband Richard called The Pearcey Report. This will be a blog that you will want to check often.

Hat tip: Writing Right.

Book Review: The Boundaries of Technique

In The Boundaries of Technique, Professor Andrew Yuengert (Professor of Economics, Pepperdine University) uses the moral philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to show that economics and ethics cannot be isolated from one another but are in fact intertwined. In other words, economics is not a morally neutral discipline. Rather, the economist must understand why are they are doing what they do in their studies instead of just what they are doing. Professor Yuengert points out that most economists are focused on method rather than motivation and fail to see the importance of ethical considerations in their work.

Frankly, I found the book a little difficult to read partly because I am neither an economist nor well-read in the area of philosophy. However, Professor Yuengert appears to have researched the topic rather well and makes a carefully documented case for the incorporation of ethical considerations into economic studies. This is a book that I would recommend for students of economics as there are considerations that should be made for a moral compass to guide one's studies.

The Boundaries of Technique is part of the Studies in Ethics and Economics series from the Acton Institute and is published by Lexington Books. The book was provided to me for review through Mind and Media. No other consideration was received for this review.

What if the Miers Nomination is Withdrawn?

President Bush has certainly taken a lot of heat, especially from conservatives, over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. What would happen if the President decided to withdraw the nomination? Carol Platt Liebau, in a column today on Human Events Online, says that withdrawing the nomination would be a terrible move:

First, recall that at the conclusion of the Roberts hearings, Republicans gleefully pointed out that 22 Democrats, led by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), had voted against a clearly qualified and truly outstanding nominee at the behest of far-left special interest groups. Forcing the President to withdraw the Miers nomination likewise would open Republicans to charges that the President is toeing a line laid down by a highly energized and vocal interest within his own party. That, in turn, would position the Democrats to argue, wrongly but credibly, that judicial selections are being dictated by an elite cadre of "scary extremists." Hardly the impression that Republicans want lingering in a voter’s mind on Election Day.

Moreover, for the past five years, Republicans have, quite rightly, faulted Senate liberals for imposing an ideological litmus test on judicial nominees. Noting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with a vote of 96-3 and that Antonin Scalia ascended the court on a 98-0 vote, Republicans have repeatedly invoked the days when nominees were evaluated on their qualifications and competence – not on their ideology. By opposing Ms. Miers on the basis of their worst (but yet unproven) fears about her political preferences or philosophy, conservative critics lend credibility to the argument that both judging itself and the evaluation of judicial nominations are irreducibly political exercises.

Finally, a premature withdrawal of the Miers nomination would create other political problems. Outside-the-beltway Republicans, along with evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson and Richard Land, look favorably on the Miers nomination. Anti-Miers rationales – ranging from "we're afraid she's not an originalist" to "she's not the best qualified candidate" to "the President should have picked someone else" – simply don't resonate with a significant portion of the Republican base. They see nothing amiss with Ms. Miers' credentials, and are inclined to trust the President's judgment on the nominee given his record on appellate judges, tax cuts, the war on terror and social security reform. Seeking to sabotage the Miers nomination before a hearing creates the misimpression within the party (and without) that some prominent Republicans disdain the achievements of a woman who is, at the very least, an accomplished legal practitioner and trailblazer.

I don't know whether the President expected the criticism he has received especially from fellow conservatives over this nomination. He's not been one to back down from a fight before. My guess is he'll run the risk of having the Senate deny Ms. Miers a seat on the Court before he would withdraw the nomination. Given the political fallout that could occur if he did withdraw the nomination it's probably better to go ahead and fight this one out even if it means losing the battle.

The Curse of the Black Sox

Dave Anderson writes today in the Austin Times-Statesman that the Chicago White Sox are haunted by the Black Sox of 1919, the eight players who took money to throw the World Series. (Hat tip: Baseball Musings)

While the Black Sox scandal is a fascinating story and an important part of baseball history, I don't think that it has anything to do with the success or failure of the current squad. The current Sox have proven capable of overcoming adversity (and even a bad call or two) in order to win. I expect them to be a formidable opponent for either the Cardinals or Astros in the Series.

If you would like to know more about the Black Sox scandal, I highly recommend Eliot Asinof's terrific book Eight Men Out as well as John Sayles' movie by the same name.

The Next Great Awakening?

The September/October issue of Rare Jewel Magazine features a number of stories on the Next Great Awakening. In other words, are we poised for another widespread revival in this country as we have seen in the past?

To get a better understanding of where we are as a country and where we are headed, it's helpful first to look at where we have been so far. Through the articles contained in this isue, they do a good job of laying the historical foundation of previous revivals and showing what factors were involved so that we can get a better sense of whether such a revival can occur again and what our role as individual believers might be in such a revival.

As with prior issues I have reviewed, Rare Jewel has proven why it is such a great tool for believers who want to be involved in the critical issues of our day. Though we can debate whether another Great Awakening can occur (and whether we should be seeking one), we can at least be prepared if it does by consulting this great magazine.

No consideration was provided to me for this review apart from the magazine.

Breaking the Curse.....Again?

Last year the Boston Red Sox broke their World Series drought with a victory in the Fall Classic against the Cardinals. Now it's the Chicago White Sox turn to break the curse as they clinched a spot in the Fall Classic with a terrific win last night over the Anaheim Angels. Following a series opening loss, the White Sox managed to get four complete games from their starters en route to a 4-1 ALCS victory. It marks the first time since 1959 the Sox have made it to the Series and they haven't won since 1917 (they would have most likely won the 1919 series if it hadn't been for the Black Sox who intentionally threw the Series).

While the NLCS still remains to be decided (Houston can clinch tonight with a victory over St. Louis), the Sox look like they are going to be tough to beat. As much as I hate to say it (and you know as a Cubs fan, I do) this may be the year for the Sox.