John Boehner is doing his job well the second week into the Obama administration, as are Mike Pence, Eric Cantor and other leaders and mouthpieces within the Republican congressional minority. Not a single Republican voted for the monstrosity of a stimulus package! Every one courageously stood firm, and 12 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with them.
I sent my Congressman (Dan Burton, from Indiana's 5th District) an e-mail yesterday morning, with wording to the effect that I never even have to worry about him. I know I can count on him to do the right thing on fiscal policy. I was not disappointed, once again. Find out who your Congressman is and send them a note, either congratulatory or scathing, depending on their vote!
The Republicans have found a backbone and are sending a message. I remember being so chagrined back in September when, on "This Week" with George Stephanopolous, John Boehner pronounced that there was no choice but to opt for a massive stimulus package because the economic predictions were so dire...like nothing he had ever heard. He has clearly reversed course, and good for him! The sooner the better. It has become painfully obvious that very few congressional representatives have much knowledge of economics (or Senators either, for that matter). So I suppose a brief period of misjudgment can be forgiven, though the fallout for the country as a result of that ignorance could be and indeed, has been disastrous. (See results of November 4, 2008 election!)
The stimulus package will pass because I doubt the Senate will filibuster it. But the hands of all House Republicans will be clean, as well as those of most GOP Senators. (If John McCain won't vote for the stimulus package, maybe Lindsey Graham won't either.) And that is important, not just with the next election in mind, but also for the history books.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Republicans who voted to confirm Secretary Geithner
I am sure this will ruin the day and lead to much shedding of tears for those Republicans who voted to confirm the tax evader, Tim Geithner, for Secretary of the Treasury. I mean, it doesn't get much more ignominous than to merit posting on my Wall of Shame!
Someone has to do it, though, and I haven't seen this anywhere else. Forthwith, here is the list of the 10 GOP Senators who folded:
Lindsey Graham--South Carolina (no surprise there)
John Cornyn--Texas (BIG surprise to me; I love Cornyn, but he was sure wrong on this one)
Bob Corker--Tennessee
Mike Crapo--Idaho
John Ensign--Nevada
Judd Gregg--New Hampshire
Orrin Hatch--Utah (the perennial reconciler)
Richard Shelby--Alabama
Olympia Snow--Maine
George Voinovich--Ohio
Kit Bond from Missouri did not vote; I'm not sure why.
I expected that the Democrats would march in total lockstep on this, but they surprised me! And those who did not vote for Geithner deserve honorable mention here, as well. Again, I'm sure this will bring a beaming smile to their faces since they all check this blog daily.
Here are the Democrats who did the right thing and voted "No" against a popular new President:
Robert Byrd--West Virginia
Russ Feingold--Wisconsin
Tom Harkin--Iowa
And surprisingly: Bernie Sanders--Independent (Socialist) from Vermont
Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts (for understandable health reasons, I'm sure) and Ron Wyden from Oregon did not vote.
Someone has to do it, though, and I haven't seen this anywhere else. Forthwith, here is the list of the 10 GOP Senators who folded:
Lindsey Graham--South Carolina (no surprise there)
John Cornyn--Texas (BIG surprise to me; I love Cornyn, but he was sure wrong on this one)
Bob Corker--Tennessee
Mike Crapo--Idaho
John Ensign--Nevada
Judd Gregg--New Hampshire
Orrin Hatch--Utah (the perennial reconciler)
Richard Shelby--Alabama
Olympia Snow--Maine
George Voinovich--Ohio
Kit Bond from Missouri did not vote; I'm not sure why.
I expected that the Democrats would march in total lockstep on this, but they surprised me! And those who did not vote for Geithner deserve honorable mention here, as well. Again, I'm sure this will bring a beaming smile to their faces since they all check this blog daily.
Here are the Democrats who did the right thing and voted "No" against a popular new President:
Robert Byrd--West Virginia
Russ Feingold--Wisconsin
Tom Harkin--Iowa
And surprisingly: Bernie Sanders--Independent (Socialist) from Vermont
Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts (for understandable health reasons, I'm sure) and Ron Wyden from Oregon did not vote.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Schwarzenegger buddies up to Obama
Can anyone tell me WHY Arnold Schwarzenegger masquerades as a Republican? All I can discern is that he "idolized" Ronald Reagan (I remember that from a Schwarzenegger soundbite a day or so after Reagan's death). And that's about it.
Ah-nold has NO CLUE. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. He has driven his state further into the ground than Gray Davis could ever have dreamed of doing. And this is the man who ran as the candidate to turn the state around, so let's all please recall the current governor we re-elected less than a year ago.
Newsmax reports that Schwarzenegger "wants the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse a 2007 conclusion by the Bush administration that states do not have authority to impose greenhouse gas standards for new cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles." He has sent President Obama a letter pleading for this leadership in this reversal drive (no pun intended, hee hee hee).
So not only is Schwarzenegger making the case for government control over the automotive industry; he is also pleading for additional trumping of states' rights...as the GOP governor of the nation's most populous STATE.
Beautiful. With Republicans like this in power, why do we worry about the Democrats????
UPDATE ON 1/27: I committed an error of laziness or oversight, one or the other, that I need to correct. Technically, in fact, Schwarzenegger would not be trumping California rights; he is pleading for the rollback of the Bush administration's refusal to allow California to enforce tighter fuel emission standards. It is still the wrong decision, but it is not an anti-state's rights issue. My mistake.
Ah-nold has NO CLUE. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. He has driven his state further into the ground than Gray Davis could ever have dreamed of doing. And this is the man who ran as the candidate to turn the state around, so let's all please recall the current governor we re-elected less than a year ago.
Newsmax reports that Schwarzenegger "wants the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse a 2007 conclusion by the Bush administration that states do not have authority to impose greenhouse gas standards for new cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles." He has sent President Obama a letter pleading for this leadership in this reversal drive (no pun intended, hee hee hee).
So not only is Schwarzenegger making the case for government control over the automotive industry; he is also pleading for additional trumping of states' rights...as the GOP governor of the nation's most populous STATE.
Beautiful. With Republicans like this in power, why do we worry about the Democrats????
UPDATE ON 1/27: I committed an error of laziness or oversight, one or the other, that I need to correct. Technically, in fact, Schwarzenegger would not be trumping California rights; he is pleading for the rollback of the Bush administration's refusal to allow California to enforce tighter fuel emission standards. It is still the wrong decision, but it is not an anti-state's rights issue. My mistake.
Thoughts on the inauguration of President Barack Obama
Was God smiling down on Barack Obama yesterday? I will leave that for others to decide, but one thing is certain: the sunshine was beautiful, rendering it the type of Inauguration weather that we have not seen since at least 1992, if memory serves.
I attended George W. Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and vowed never to go to another, unless I have some sort of invitation that also provides me with a comfortable seat where I'm actually able to see what is going on. We were about halfway between the Washington Monument and the Capitol, I suppose...too far away even to see through binoculars what was transpiring on the west front of the Capitol where the President is sworn in. If it had not been for the Jumbotrons set up all down the lawn, we would have heard the President's voice, but not been privy to any of the accompanying action. The worst part, though, was the nasty, soggy cold. It was about 37 degrees...too warm to snow, but cold enough that the misting rain felt miserable. We were chilled to the bone by the time we headed out of town that evening.
Apparently, it was plenty cold yesterday, but not enough to dampen the spirits of the revelers. And certainly, the sunshine would have helped to dispel some of the freeze.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DAY:
1. For me, there was real joy in the very visual reminder that we have reached a point where we can elect an African-American person to the highest office in the land. Would Dr. King have really dreamed, 40 years ago, that it would become a reality this soon?
2. Barack, Michelle, Sasha and Melia Obama are SO photogenic. Fox News' cameras did a great job of following them very closely all through the day, as they wended their ways from the White House to the Capitol and back down the parade route again.
3. Rick Warren's prayer was gutsy, eloquent, reverent, yet warm. And He prayed "in the Name of the One Who has changed my life...Jesus, Yeshua" (and additional Names of Christ in other languages). More power to him!
4. Pundits, both left and right, have jumped all over Obama's speech. (By the way, I will never forget where I was when I watched him be sworn in: eating Rocky Top Grilled Chicken at Longhorn Steakhouse in Greenwood!) I thought it was pretty good. Of course, it is just a speech. But, I was struck by the realism of it. Not much soaring rhetoric, which I think respects the ominousness of the moment in our economy. I was surprised by this.
5. The multitude of celebrity sightings as the Inauguration got underway. I enjoyed watching all of the Senators emerge from the Capitol, as well as all of the living ex-Vice Presidents and ex-Presidents, with their spouses.
6. The grace displayed by both the outgoing President and the incoming one towards each other.
7. Hearing Fox anchor Brit Hume say, on catching a glimpse of former President Clinton, that "Bill Clinton always looks like he's trying to figure out what facial expression to assume next."
And now, for the LESS THAN DESIRABLE ELEMENTS OF THE DAY:
1. The closing words of Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer were completely out of keeping with not only the rest of his prayer, but the spirit of the day itself. This man is a hero to the civil rights movement, yet seems not to realize that we are in 2009, not 1959. Beseeching God to bring us to a place where "the black aren't held back and the white will choose the right"...Distasteful and disrespectful doesn't cut it. Bill O'Reilly blamed it on Lowery's age (87?).
2. Elizabeth Alexander's poem didn't really do anything for me.
3. The campaign rally-style chants of the crowd "Obama! OBAMA! OBAMA!" when he descended to the Capitol platform seemed cultlike on a day when we celebrate America and the peaceful transfer of power, rather than electoral victory.
4. Having to look for even 10 seconds at Al Gore, one of the most phony, power-hungry and insincere politicians in American history, and realizing what tripe he's foisted on the American people with his global warming swindle. Had he not contested Florida, the last 8 years might well have looked very different.
All in all, I enjoyed the day much more than I would have thought possible 2 1/2 months ago. Presidents come and go, and the Republican party is far from dead. I will support this President when I can, and will vigorously oppose him when conscience dictates. Thus goes the sweep of history.
I attended George W. Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and vowed never to go to another, unless I have some sort of invitation that also provides me with a comfortable seat where I'm actually able to see what is going on. We were about halfway between the Washington Monument and the Capitol, I suppose...too far away even to see through binoculars what was transpiring on the west front of the Capitol where the President is sworn in. If it had not been for the Jumbotrons set up all down the lawn, we would have heard the President's voice, but not been privy to any of the accompanying action. The worst part, though, was the nasty, soggy cold. It was about 37 degrees...too warm to snow, but cold enough that the misting rain felt miserable. We were chilled to the bone by the time we headed out of town that evening.
Apparently, it was plenty cold yesterday, but not enough to dampen the spirits of the revelers. And certainly, the sunshine would have helped to dispel some of the freeze.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DAY:
1. For me, there was real joy in the very visual reminder that we have reached a point where we can elect an African-American person to the highest office in the land. Would Dr. King have really dreamed, 40 years ago, that it would become a reality this soon?
2. Barack, Michelle, Sasha and Melia Obama are SO photogenic. Fox News' cameras did a great job of following them very closely all through the day, as they wended their ways from the White House to the Capitol and back down the parade route again.
3. Rick Warren's prayer was gutsy, eloquent, reverent, yet warm. And He prayed "in the Name of the One Who has changed my life...Jesus, Yeshua" (and additional Names of Christ in other languages). More power to him!
4. Pundits, both left and right, have jumped all over Obama's speech. (By the way, I will never forget where I was when I watched him be sworn in: eating Rocky Top Grilled Chicken at Longhorn Steakhouse in Greenwood!) I thought it was pretty good. Of course, it is just a speech. But, I was struck by the realism of it. Not much soaring rhetoric, which I think respects the ominousness of the moment in our economy. I was surprised by this.
5. The multitude of celebrity sightings as the Inauguration got underway. I enjoyed watching all of the Senators emerge from the Capitol, as well as all of the living ex-Vice Presidents and ex-Presidents, with their spouses.
6. The grace displayed by both the outgoing President and the incoming one towards each other.
7. Hearing Fox anchor Brit Hume say, on catching a glimpse of former President Clinton, that "Bill Clinton always looks like he's trying to figure out what facial expression to assume next."
And now, for the LESS THAN DESIRABLE ELEMENTS OF THE DAY:
1. The closing words of Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer were completely out of keeping with not only the rest of his prayer, but the spirit of the day itself. This man is a hero to the civil rights movement, yet seems not to realize that we are in 2009, not 1959. Beseeching God to bring us to a place where "the black aren't held back and the white will choose the right"...Distasteful and disrespectful doesn't cut it. Bill O'Reilly blamed it on Lowery's age (87?).
2. Elizabeth Alexander's poem didn't really do anything for me.
3. The campaign rally-style chants of the crowd "Obama! OBAMA! OBAMA!" when he descended to the Capitol platform seemed cultlike on a day when we celebrate America and the peaceful transfer of power, rather than electoral victory.
4. Having to look for even 10 seconds at Al Gore, one of the most phony, power-hungry and insincere politicians in American history, and realizing what tripe he's foisted on the American people with his global warming swindle. Had he not contested Florida, the last 8 years might well have looked very different.
All in all, I enjoyed the day much more than I would have thought possible 2 1/2 months ago. Presidents come and go, and the Republican party is far from dead. I will support this President when I can, and will vigorously oppose him when conscience dictates. Thus goes the sweep of history.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Gran Torino
Pam and I saw Clint Eastwood's newest (and reportedly final) feature, "Gran Torino", on its opening night, Friday, January 9.
I was talking to a good friend and fellow Eastwood fan at Hospitality Hour at church today (between first and second service). I told him that I can't remember when the last time was that I enjoyed a movie so fully that was not a fantasy film (e.g., Chronicles of Narnia, Batman:Dark Knight, Indiana Jones, etc. (Yes, I know Indiana Jones is technically not fantasy, but you get my drift; don't tell me you believe it could actually happen, puh-leeze.) Nor do I expect to see one again soon that will compare to it.
The movie runs about an hour and 50 minutes and feels maybe half that long; it pulls you in so quickly and thoroughly that it just zips by. It runs the broad spectrum of emotions: anger, fear, warmth, humor and ultimately love.
Veteran film critic Roger Ebert describes Eastwood's role here as "Dirty Harry on a pension." He is partly right. Eastwood is still gunning for justice and boy, can he pull off the one-liners. I have only seen the first of the "Dirty Harry" films, so am not the best expert to be writing about this, but based on that alone, I would say that Walt Kowalski (Eastwood's name in "Gran Torino") is more nuanced than Harry was. And justifiably so...this is 38 years later after all.
Issues of both religious understanding and race relations are explored here, in a way that is both realistic and oddly respectful. Death has recently impacted Walt Kowalski, so he is processing that, as well as an additional array of life changes that have come his way in recent years.
This is a thoughtful, beautiful film that takes its time and doesn't race us along towards an inevitable climax. It unfolds gradually, with occasional sudden surprises, just like life does.
The language is PLENTY salty, words that I do not use nor do I allow my children to use them (or my friends, without a reprimand!). In considering this, though, I remembered a quote from another famous actor that is worth keeping in mind. This is a brief excerpt from a letter that Governor Ronald Reagan wrote in 1970 to the director of Patton, Frank Schaffner:
"I have long been an opponent, as you know, of vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity on the screen as we are seeing it in so many pictures. On the other hand, I've never believed that I was a total square and have never been opposed to the use of anything absolutely essential to the telling of the story. It did not offend me in the slightest that you had Patton talking as Patton talked. In fact, before going, I gave the Skipper [his son, Ron, Jr.] quite a lecture on the man and the history surrounding him, and then told him that he would be hearing this kind of language which didn't make it right for him or me to use, but that this was a part of the man and his character. Therefore, we sat through the movie and I had no embarrassment whatsoever about the language. It definitely belonged."
You can make of that what you will. Frankly, the discussion of what does and does not belong in a film for a Christian viewer is another topic for another time, but from my vantage point, you would be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't see "Gran Torino" for fear of hearing a few foul words.
I was talking to a good friend and fellow Eastwood fan at Hospitality Hour at church today (between first and second service). I told him that I can't remember when the last time was that I enjoyed a movie so fully that was not a fantasy film (e.g., Chronicles of Narnia, Batman:Dark Knight, Indiana Jones, etc. (Yes, I know Indiana Jones is technically not fantasy, but you get my drift; don't tell me you believe it could actually happen, puh-leeze.) Nor do I expect to see one again soon that will compare to it.
The movie runs about an hour and 50 minutes and feels maybe half that long; it pulls you in so quickly and thoroughly that it just zips by. It runs the broad spectrum of emotions: anger, fear, warmth, humor and ultimately love.
Veteran film critic Roger Ebert describes Eastwood's role here as "Dirty Harry on a pension." He is partly right. Eastwood is still gunning for justice and boy, can he pull off the one-liners. I have only seen the first of the "Dirty Harry" films, so am not the best expert to be writing about this, but based on that alone, I would say that Walt Kowalski (Eastwood's name in "Gran Torino") is more nuanced than Harry was. And justifiably so...this is 38 years later after all.
Issues of both religious understanding and race relations are explored here, in a way that is both realistic and oddly respectful. Death has recently impacted Walt Kowalski, so he is processing that, as well as an additional array of life changes that have come his way in recent years.
This is a thoughtful, beautiful film that takes its time and doesn't race us along towards an inevitable climax. It unfolds gradually, with occasional sudden surprises, just like life does.
The language is PLENTY salty, words that I do not use nor do I allow my children to use them (or my friends, without a reprimand!). In considering this, though, I remembered a quote from another famous actor that is worth keeping in mind. This is a brief excerpt from a letter that Governor Ronald Reagan wrote in 1970 to the director of Patton, Frank Schaffner:
"I have long been an opponent, as you know, of vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity on the screen as we are seeing it in so many pictures. On the other hand, I've never believed that I was a total square and have never been opposed to the use of anything absolutely essential to the telling of the story. It did not offend me in the slightest that you had Patton talking as Patton talked. In fact, before going, I gave the Skipper [his son, Ron, Jr.] quite a lecture on the man and the history surrounding him, and then told him that he would be hearing this kind of language which didn't make it right for him or me to use, but that this was a part of the man and his character. Therefore, we sat through the movie and I had no embarrassment whatsoever about the language. It definitely belonged."
You can make of that what you will. Frankly, the discussion of what does and does not belong in a film for a Christian viewer is another topic for another time, but from my vantage point, you would be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't see "Gran Torino" for fear of hearing a few foul words.
Brit Hume's interview with the 2 George Bushes
Sorry I have been writing so much about TV lately, but it seems I've been doing a spate of viewing, and in any event, I can do a lot of it while I grade papers, participate in online discussion boards and that sort of thing.
I wouldn't have missed this special in any event, with Brit Hume sitting in Chris Wallace' Fox News Sunday chair, interviewing the two President Bushes. Just a simple snapshot of Brit Hume facing the father and son there in the White House Cabinet Room is rather riveting. This is only the second time, after all, that a father and son have both served in the Presidency. Some feel it is interesting that it is only the second time. I think it is rather astonishing that it has ever happened at all, especially when you consider the legacies of many Presidential children. (Do a study on that sometime; Doug Wead has a book about some of them called All the President's Children that would also be worth your time.)
Say what you will about both Bush 41 & 43, and I have plenty of criticisms for both. Yet, it is quite a tribute that George and Barbara have not only spawned a two-term President, who managed to win the White House 14 years (and 2 successful gubernatorial elections) after leaving alcoholism behind, but also a successful two-term governor of Florida, a daughter who is a fine businesswoman in her own right, and two other sons who are doing quite well in their own fields despite personal adversity (Marvin and Neil).
Brit Hume is one of my Top 5 favorite journalists on the scene today. His laconic air masks, at times, a deeply inquisitive mindset, a solid reportorial background, complete journalistic integrity and an off-the-wall sense of humor that is a winning mix, in my book. I will miss him on "Special Report", but will hope to see him frequently as an analyst on Fox.
I wouldn't have missed this special in any event, with Brit Hume sitting in Chris Wallace' Fox News Sunday chair, interviewing the two President Bushes. Just a simple snapshot of Brit Hume facing the father and son there in the White House Cabinet Room is rather riveting. This is only the second time, after all, that a father and son have both served in the Presidency. Some feel it is interesting that it is only the second time. I think it is rather astonishing that it has ever happened at all, especially when you consider the legacies of many Presidential children. (Do a study on that sometime; Doug Wead has a book about some of them called All the President's Children that would also be worth your time.)
Say what you will about both Bush 41 & 43, and I have plenty of criticisms for both. Yet, it is quite a tribute that George and Barbara have not only spawned a two-term President, who managed to win the White House 14 years (and 2 successful gubernatorial elections) after leaving alcoholism behind, but also a successful two-term governor of Florida, a daughter who is a fine businesswoman in her own right, and two other sons who are doing quite well in their own fields despite personal adversity (Marvin and Neil).
Brit Hume is one of my Top 5 favorite journalists on the scene today. His laconic air masks, at times, a deeply inquisitive mindset, a solid reportorial background, complete journalistic integrity and an off-the-wall sense of humor that is a winning mix, in my book. I will miss him on "Special Report", but will hope to see him frequently as an analyst on Fox.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Very late thoughts on David Gregory replacing Russert
So have you taken the chance to view a whole "Meet the Press" episode since David Gregory was tapped to sit in the prestigious NBC Sunday morning chair? For that matter, how many weeks has he been hosting now? I don't even know...so you can tell how faithful a viewer I've been lately. Since Russert's passing, my Sunday #1 pecking order now alternates between Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday and "This Week" on ABC, where I often skip the Stephanopolous interview(s) and cut straight to the roundtable so I can see what George Will is thinking these days!
But maybe I should reconsider. I caught Gregory on the Daily Show the other night. Probably not the best place to make a judgment on his skills as an objective interviewer...but nonetheless, even while Stewart bashed Bush and relentlessly tried to lure Gregory into doing the same, Gregory refused to take the bait. It was quite admirable to watch, which even Stewart was forced to acknowledge (aka "You're already bobbing and weaving like a pro!" as only Stewart could utter it).
Brent Bozell and his colleagues at the Media Research Center are continuously unimpressed with David Gregory's bias and clearly don't expect much from him. I suppose if I were all about fairness in viewing habits, I would give Gregory a chance...But even 7 months after Russert's untimely passing, it is just hard to imagine anyone else permanently hosting the show. Big shoes to fill and all that.
But maybe I should reconsider. I caught Gregory on the Daily Show the other night. Probably not the best place to make a judgment on his skills as an objective interviewer...but nonetheless, even while Stewart bashed Bush and relentlessly tried to lure Gregory into doing the same, Gregory refused to take the bait. It was quite admirable to watch, which even Stewart was forced to acknowledge (aka "You're already bobbing and weaving like a pro!" as only Stewart could utter it).
Brent Bozell and his colleagues at the Media Research Center are continuously unimpressed with David Gregory's bias and clearly don't expect much from him. I suppose if I were all about fairness in viewing habits, I would give Gregory a chance...But even 7 months after Russert's untimely passing, it is just hard to imagine anyone else permanently hosting the show. Big shoes to fill and all that.
Slight shift in blogging approach
I am going to try something different in my blogging efforts for 2009.
Most of the entries I have made this year have been more along the style of columns ala Townhall.com. Ultimately though, especially in the REALLY busy seasons of life, on one of which I am about to embark, this has the effect of making me decide I just don't have time to blog at the moment.
I am getting back into my Liberty classes next week, from which I took a hiatus after Pam's father passed away. This will leave me with very little discretionary time.
So I am going to switch to briefer blurbs with my commentary on the news (primarily political and religious) as it happens. I plan to still, from time to time, post longer discourses as I have in the past, but that will not be as frequent as it has been.
Hard to believe I have been doing this for nearly a year now! It has been fun, but since blogging is at best, a tertiary venture for me (since my primary obligations include my recruiting and teaching for IWU, as well as family and church duties), I am still learning the ropes in many ways.
So we will see how this goes!
Most of the entries I have made this year have been more along the style of columns ala Townhall.com. Ultimately though, especially in the REALLY busy seasons of life, on one of which I am about to embark, this has the effect of making me decide I just don't have time to blog at the moment.
I am getting back into my Liberty classes next week, from which I took a hiatus after Pam's father passed away. This will leave me with very little discretionary time.
So I am going to switch to briefer blurbs with my commentary on the news (primarily political and religious) as it happens. I plan to still, from time to time, post longer discourses as I have in the past, but that will not be as frequent as it has been.
Hard to believe I have been doing this for nearly a year now! It has been fun, but since blogging is at best, a tertiary venture for me (since my primary obligations include my recruiting and teaching for IWU, as well as family and church duties), I am still learning the ropes in many ways.
So we will see how this goes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
