Newsweak

The following is a letter I sent to Newsweek:

Dear Editor of Newsweek,

You may accept this letter as the cancellation of my subscription. I'd like to tell you why I'm canceling, though I doubt it will have any bearing on how you continue to run your magazine.

I first subscribed to "Newsweek" because I wanted the "News" in a format that would go more indepth than my local paper or the cable news networks. I didn't realize I was subscribing to "Newsweak" or more appropriately: "Opinionweek" - and certainly not a balance of opinions. Truth be told, it turns out I was subscribing to "FarLeftweek." Of all of the coverage of the election that I consumed before I made my decision on who to vote for, none were more in the tank for Obama than your periodical. I found nothing but article upon article promoted the cultural messiah-like greatness of Obama while deriding McCain as simply a clone of George W Bush. This was most obviously portrayed in an article that ran the week before the election entitled "Why McCain Won" which was an apologetic on how McCain would have won the election, had he won, which basically ends with the sentiment that voting for Obama is exerting "common sense and decency" and a vote for anyone else is not.

Your Leftism is so extreme that it seems almost to be to the level of outright fear of the right. Even in this most recent edition in "conventional" wisdom (which never quite seemed "conventional") you managed to find a reason to slam Sarah Palin yet again even though her bid for Vice President has been soundly defeated.

While I prefer to read the opinions of both sides to get a fair understanding of the arguments, I could overlook your painfully obvious political bias.

However, when that became coupled with a complete misrepresentation of the Bible and its stance on homosexual marriage, I could not continue to support your publication.

Had your piece on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" been written by someone with a Biblical education, rather than two people with a concordance and a search engine, it might have held more credence with your more educated readers. The assertions of Ms Ball and Ms Underwood that the multiple wives of the patriarchs was condoned, that lesbian activity is never mentioned in the Bible, and that the New Testament doesn't speak to what a marriage should look like are completely and categorically false. I can forgive them for not understanding the difference between cultural, ceremonial, and moral laws as they are laid out in the Old Testament. However, the sinfulness of homosexuality is repeated many times in the New Testament, confirming the law as a moral one when written about in Leviticus, not a cultural or ceremonial law. Romans 1:26 states "...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." While some might argue this refers to beastiality, verse 27 says "In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Verse 26 must be a Biblical mention of lesbianism as this was "in the same way" as the homosexual men. And if the Bible doesn't speak against homosexual marriage, why does it call these relationships "unnatural?" Why is it that when the Bible gives instruction on a successful marriage does it always refer to the husband and wife? To be a leader in the church, one must be the "husband of but one wife. (1 Timothy)" A husband is to love his wife "as he loves himself (Ephesians 5)." If homosexual marriage is Biblically acceptable, why is there such gender specific language, and familial roles?

Ms Ball and Ms Underwood did, however, get one thing correct: Without a doubt Jesus would have reached out with love to those with homosexual desires. In face, He loved them enough to die for them, just has he did for all sinners; myself included. No sin is any worse than another in the eyes of God and my sin is no better or worse than those who lust for members of the same sex. Jesus would have loved them the same way he would love a person engaged in extra-marital sex: He'd welcome them with open arms and love them as a person without condoning the relationship they were engaged in. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. And Jesus loves homosexuals.

Truly, the final straw and the ultimate cause of my cancellation was a small plug for your website "xtra.Newsweek.com." I could not have been more disappointed in the choice of verbiage. The piece reads, "Also, a look at the charges that African-Americans are responsible for Prop 8's passage." "Charges?" Murders face "charges." Rapists face "charges." Voters do not! Regardless of how one feels about the outcome of the vote, such sentiments should never be expressed in this fashion. Do we levy the same "charges" against African-Americans for putting Obama in the White House? I didn't think so.

Behold the Lamb of God

This weekend I had the privilege of escorting the most beautiful woman in the world to a very special event. 11 years ago, I was astonished when the Queen of Hearts agreed to go with me to a Caedmon's Call concert in Boston. The opening acts were two people that we hadn't heard before: Bebo Norman and Andrew Peterson. They have since become my favorite artists.

In 2004 Andrew Peterson, with the help of some of the most talented musicians on the planet, put together the single greatest "Christmas" album ever made: Behold the Lamb of God. To celebrate our sixth wedding anniversary, the QofH and I attended the Behold the Lamb of God tour in Connecticut. (The Queen of Hearts has also commented on this on her blog).

There is so much that I want to say about this that I don't even know where to start. I'll just go with stream of conscience:

The concert was fantastic. ~Beyond fantastic~ Andrew Peterson, Bebo Norman, Jill Phillips, Andrew Osenga, Ben Shive, and Andrew Gullahorn all played some of their own music in the beginning. After a brief intermission (and the obligatory Compassion International infomercial) they all returned and played, without stop, through every song on the album. The music on the CD is moving, the music live is incredible. (Did I mention we were in about the sixth row?) We even had the chance to momentarily speak with Mr. Peterson.

There was the possibility that I was going to have to attend this concert with someone else as our little Wild Card might not have cooperated enough for the QofH to feel comfortable leaving her to accompany me. I'm so very glad that wasn't the case.

I have tried my hand at many things. I even think I'm not to shabby at some of them (Athletics, film, public speaking...) There are things that I'm not very good at. (Basketball, watercolors, cleaning...) Of the things that I'm not good at, there is nothing that I want to excel at more than music. I listen to these artists. I bask in their songwriting genius and I wish that I could have a part in that. I wanted to be up on that stage surrounded by these titans of talent. Is it because of how their music speaks to my life? Is it because they are witty and poignant in conveying a message in their songs? Is it because they seem to enjoy a camaraderie that I have not know for some time? I do not know the answer to these questions.

Andrew Peterson spoke briefly of Frederick Law Olmsted. He is known as the "father of landscape architecture." He designed Central Park. He knew that what he was designing would not attain its full design until years after he died. He painted with trees and flowers and bushes. Andrew said that was what he wanted his music to be like: He wanted it to be relevant today and even more so thirty years from now. That comment gave me pause to think: Compare what typical "Christian" music sings about to the topics typical "secular" music includes. On average (and I am not creating any kind of rule here, but on average) secular music contains things that are fleeting and temporary while Christian music has more lasting themes. What if "secular" music started singing about community responsibility more so than just "stop snitchin'?" What if they started singing about loyalty in marriage rather than "don't worry 'bout the ring you wear 'cause as long as no one knows then nobody can care?"

This made me stop an consider: What is the most fleeting, most temporary subject that I focus on? Sports. Nothing is more out-of-date than a two week old Sports Illustrated. What happens when a team wins it all? We immediately start looking to next year. When JMO:Just the facts puts out a power ranking, how long is it good for? Until the next game is played.

So: What has this concert done for me? It gave me an amazing evening out with the love of my life. It's given me a greater appreciation for the music of Andrew Peterson and friends. It made me wish I had the time, energy, and talent to be a singer/songwriter. It reminded me what's important in this life. And hopefully it will cause me to focus more on the Word than the World Series.

It was a great concert!

Red State/Blue State Myth

I'd just like to take a moment to point out the myth of the Red State and the Blue state. Presented below are the electoral maps by county rather than by state for the last three elections. (Red=Republican, Blue=Democrat)

Here is 2008:

The Democrats won this election by about 6%. Ok, I can see that. The heavy population centers are all blue. Here is the 2008 electoral map by state:


Now, some of the things this juxtaposition shows are no brainers: New England is in the back pocket of the Democrats just as the South is owned by the GOP. However, some of what we see should cause some concern... Look at Oregon. That red state went blue. As did Nevada! And the blue state South Carolina went red! Maybe this was an anomaly. Let's look at 2004:

By county:

By state:
Take a look at California, Illinois, Michigan, and Oregon! Somehow those states went blue. And New Mexico somehow went red. Take a look at the 2008 Nevada and the 2004 Nevada. That little county in the northwest corner switched the state from red to blue!

Now, here's the most interesting one:

2000 by county:

2000 by state:

Remember, the blue candidate actually received more votes than the red candidate! So, what can we learn from this? Cities decide elections

Let's take a detailed look:
Pennsylvania: on all three maps, PA goes blue. Where are the blue specks? Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Illinois: Also a blue state. Where is the blue located? Chicago and outside of Saint Louis, MO.
California: Sacramento, San Fransisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego,
Ohio: The two times Ohio managed to go red, the Dems failed to get Cincinnati
As Detroit goes, so goes Michigan. As Green Bay and Madison goes, so goes Wisconsin.

I've done some pain staking research. I looked up the population of all of the cities in the United States that have over 100,000 people. Then I catalogued the population of each state. I added the total population of "City-Dwellers" and compared that to the total population of each state. Any one care to guess what I discovered?

In Red States: The majority of the time, less than 25% of the states population lived in a 100,000 person city. In some cases, they didn't even have a city totaling 100,000 people.

In Blue States: The majority of the blue states had over 40% of their population living in 100,000 person cities.

As you know, JMO doesn't like to point out problems without offering solutions. In today's electoral process, rural and suburban voters are left out in the cold. I propose an electoral college for each state. Every county gets a certain number of state electoral votes based on the population of that county then they are tallied to determine which candidate carries that state. The numbers would be the same as each State House of Representatives. I believe this will balance out the desires of the more rural citizens with those that live in the big cities. I will endeavor to do more research regarding this solution.

In the meantime, here are the Electoral College maps broken down by county one after another for easy comparison:

Review: Goodnight and Good Luck

2005/PG/Drama

Set during the 1950's McCarthy Red Hunt, Goodnight and Good Luck chronicles the heroic actions of Edward R Murrow and his team at "See it Now" as they battle TV Executives and the posibility of being black listed or even imprisoned to combat Senator McCarthy and his actions.

What impressed me most about this film was the sheer amount of original footage they were able to use. It was as if Senator McCarthy were a paid actor in this movie. Also, much of the movie was Mr Murrow delivering portions of the show "See it Now," adding more original content to this compelling picture.

While there were a few lines thrown into this movie that appeared to be aimed at the Bush Administrations Gitmo Detention Center, overall, this was a remarkably un-political political film. The makers admitted that they recognize that some of the things that were said could be misconstrued to be purposeful attacks on the current administration, but they simply wanted to tell the story of Murrow vs McCarthy and the courage that it took at the time.

Much like Shattered Glass, though the film was set mostly in a TV studio it was still compelling and captivating. I was disappointed when it was over because I wanted to see more of the tension, more of the planning, more of the history of the exchange between Murrow and McCarthy. Most of the acting was stellar, including the possible weak link of Actor/Director Clooney which was good. He wisely selected a smaller role than other Actor/Directors have in the past (*cough* Gibson *cough* Cosner *cough* Eastwood *cough*). I appreciated that it was shot in black and white and only one of the subplots seemed unnecessary.

If you liked Thirteen Days or even if you didn't, chances are good you won't feel like the 93 minutes you gave to Goodnight and Good Luck was a waste of time.

3.5 out of 5 stars.