Skip to main content
The election was a somewhat bitter pill the other day, but there were a ton of bright spots (mostly) unrelated to policy. Consider:

--This January, a woman will hold the Speaker's gavel for the first time ever as Speaker of the House. (And that is good, even if I don't think in group identity terms.)

--An ardent Catholic anti-abortion Republican lost his Senate seat...to an ardent Catholic anti-abortion Democrat. I'm not Catholic, but in terms of life and death, more ardent Catholics=better country.

--Heath Shuler, an evangelical Christian and former NFL quarterback, was elected to the House.

--Arnold is still the Governator. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but hey, doesn't it just prove how great (and frankly, cool) America really is?

--We got to see Bill Kristol become the John Madden of political coverage.

--Continuing my unrestrained endorsement of Fox News, (sorry) have you ever been as comforted by so dour-seeming a man as Brit Hume? But admit it, he's endearing.

--Our country has grown in its attitudes so much that we were able to vote for and against a whole slew of black men, as well as others of various hues.

--The election was brief enough that CNN did not lose any anchors to hyperventilation. It was a close one, however. And isn't that silly? Just relax.

--The White House was antsy, so...Bush ordered chicken tenders. Exactly. Cures my nerves every time.

--Unless you were still unaware, the country was reminded that Morton Kondracke is not a brand of chewing tobacco.

--Michael Barone is the Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris of political analysis rolled into one.

--Shep Smith brings some Mississippi Favre-magic to the anchor chair.

--Juan Williams is reliably partisan, yet likable and informative.

--The "I made Reagan turn in his Grave" award goes to James Webb.

--Joementum finally struck.

Finally...

--Lynn Swann will be back on football games very soon.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un