Kathleen Parker hits the proverbial nail on the head!

I can add nothing else, but tell you to read the following article that was in today's paper. Pay special attention to Obama's quote when asked about when conception begins.

Marcy


"Abortion is back with, dare we say it, biblical vengeance.
Republicans recently have been focused on Barack Obama's opposition several years ago to "born alive" legislation in Illinois that mirrored similar federal legislation aimed at granting personhood to a fetus/baby that was alive after removal from its mother's body, either by abortion or premature birth.
In the past few weeks, Obama has been accused of everything from favoring infanticide to lying about his vote, to inventing a cover-up, to being a baby-killing extremist.
Politics is no place for the squeamish.
What is more likely true is that Obama is studiously cautious, too smart by half, and ambivalent to a fault. Suddenly, the man whose campaign seemed helium-propelled is being pulled back down to Earth by the force of his own vagueness. Abortion, of all things, has become his kryptonite.
The long history of the Illinois born-alive bill is, well, long. Sixteen versions of the legislation came and went during the period under scrutiny and finally passed after Obama left for Washington. That history is also complicated and not as straightforward as is being advanced by Obama's and abortion's common foes.
It is probably fair to say that Obama does not favor infanticide, though his position on the Illinois bill was extreme even by pro-choice standards. But Obama's current problem isn't really about his position on abortion. It is about his central weakness as a presidential candidate: He overthinks and ends up seeming not to know what he thinks.
He can't seem to give a straight answer.
To briefly recap: Obama's initial opposition to the born-alive legislation was a concern that such a law would undermine Roe v. Wade. Based on his comments at the time, he apparently reasoned that granting personhood to an aborted fetus, albeit one with a heartbeat, was a subterfuge tactic aimed at granting personhood to a fetus.
Not without cause did he reach that conclusion. Most observers of the abortion debate understand that the legislation was fueled in part by hopes that personhood eventually might find its way back inside the birth canal. This may have been a tactic, but so it goes.
It has always seemed to me perfectly appropriate that we find terminating human life troublesome. Although settled as the law of the land, abortion at any point should be an unsettling proposition. The fact that abortion refuses to recuse itself from present politics merely confirms that many Americans are not ready to be gods.
Obama, perhaps, excluded. When asked to explain his position as a state legislator, Obama said he would have voted for the law had it included a neutrality clause -- similar to one added to the federal law -- affirming that the bill would not impact Roe v. Wade.
But the Illinois legislation in final form did include such a neutrality clause, prompting charges that Obama deliberately lied. Or did he merely misremember, as often happens in politics?
What did Obama mean and when did he mean it?
Alas, the more he tries to explain his position, the more muddled the picture becomes and the more confused voters are. The most revealing answer may have come when pastor Rick Warren asked the Illinois senator when a baby gets human rights.
"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."
Well, uh, not really.
Yes, Warren's question was complicated, especially if you're a politician afraid of saying the wrong thing. But the answer is really pretty simple. It's whatever one thinks. It is not above anyone's pay grade to be honest.
Instead, Obama punted.
Americans are accustomed to differing views on abortion and will tolerate a flip-flop now and then. But a politician who finesses or fudges out of an instinct to please will be viewed as either spineless or insecure or both -- none of which inspires confidence.
The result of such exquisite ambivalence isn't a higher level of discourse, but a lower level of trust, as recent surveys reflect. A new Reuters/Zogby poll shows McCain running five points ahead of Obama nationwide. Other polls show McCain pulling even.
Obama's born-alive problem ultimately could prove fatal to the man who thought too hard and lost his sense."

Funny how a haircut changes everything

I've been downright giddy all afternoon. I've had longer length hair for a few years now, and today, called up "my gal, Jennifer" at the Turning Point, and said "let's cut it!"

I feel certain I'm not the only woman that can have her day totally changed...because of a new look. A new do. Why is that?

God is so amazing in that, He took the time to make us so unique. Even in our gender-ness (is that a word?), we're unique. Most women can have a so-so day turn around with a good haircut. Now, what that says about us....hmmm....maybe that's not a good point. :) Here's the deal. How many guys.....in particular...my husband....give a flip about hair. I mean, Jim walks into a barber (any barber mind you), and gets a flat top. He has no loyalty with his hair. Me? Well, I go to Jennifer. That's just what I do...I schedule for every 6 weeks and wouldn't dream of going anywhere else for my style. Jim? A guy...or gal...with a red/white spiral thingy outside beckons him inside and he's good to go until the next time.

Anyway, this is not a stimulating post. Just random thoughts about hair.

Marcy

Grace at the pool

Her name was, interestingly enough, Grace. (She mentioned her last name, but it didn't stick with me.)

Grace showed up near the end of the church-wide pool party on Sunday night. I'd never laid eyes on her before, but, in a church our size, that's not unusual. This was different though. Grace was different. Wearing lots of black clothing and looking like she applied her day's eye liner without a mirror....Grace looked different. Everyone there noticed that she stuck out like a sore thumb.

In my daily devotion yesterday, I read John 13:34-35. Meeting Grace the night before resonated within me as I read the words of Jesus.

"A new command I give you..."

An order. From Jesus. Something important to follow no doubt.

"....Love one another."

Oh boy. Grace. Grace. The one with black clothes, black make-up, and the wicca shirt. 16 years old and probably experienced in way more than our 16 yr. old youth girls. Those eyes were haunting. They were covered in those fake "cat-like" contacts.

"As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Who has loved me? Jesus is speaking here to his disciples. Is He also speaking to me? Does it apply to me? I believe it does. What about girls like Grace?

"By this all men will know that you're my disciples, if you love one another."

Yeah, even the "Grace's" of the world. Grace's emblems and shocking contacts reveal and reflect way larger issues I suspect. Like what though? What's behind the wiccan symbols...the contacts...the make-up?

Voids. We all have them, and we must fill them with good things. Not so we can be so stinking good all the time, but, so we can be more like Jesus. We want the good things because we know we have a huge God who gave His Son so we might have life. Life. (Jn. 10:10) This weekend Travis Cottrell mentioned a shirt he saw recently. It said, "Try Living." I want that shirt because I need reminders daily about what God wants for me. That He has a plan...and there's a Romans 8:28 for me. I know that because I've seen it in my life. Praise God.

We are called to love one another. Even those who are different from we are. Shoot, we're pretty weird to them if you think about it.

I pray for Grace today. I pray for grace today.

Marcy

A New Look!

Okay. Why the colored pencils?

I like them! :)

I'm tweaking the blog a bit. Bear with me. :)

Marcy