The memo was, well, a memo. It wasn’t completely unbearable. But it wasn’t a walk in the park either. The low point was Monday night and into Tuesday. I’m not exactly sure why, but I was feeling just about as depressed as I ever had been. I tossed and turned until 4:00 in the morning, and then woke up probably a half dozen times before I had to get up at 7:00.
By Wednesday, however, I was starting to come out of it. I could definitely feel the prayers of everyone who knew, or at least had an inkling, of how I was feeling. I went to Bro. Paul Lafontaine’s church again on Wednesday evening. It never ceases to amaze me how much that recharges and refreshes your batteries.
Thursday night was, of course, softball. We lost again to fall to 0-4. But it’s still a blast. We have one game left, possibly. There seems to be some concern as to whether the other team, also 0-4, is prepared to even field a team again.
I got to come home on Friday and spend some time with the family. I’ll head back Sunday afternoon. I really think the rest of the semester is going to go much smoother.
As an aside, I just want to give mad props to Blaine Maag, perhaps the most fun player I ever covered while with the paper and one of the few that I still keep in contact with. After battling injuries the past two years,
32 comments:
John, I'm glad you've got your head screwed back on straight.
New subject:
Man! There are so many stories about corrupt Republicans in Washington DC that I can't even keep up anymore.
The one I read in the paper today involved the wife of a corrupt politician complaining that she was destitute because he had to give all his bribes back after being convicted, plus pay 1.6 million in fines to the IRS.
She also said that the Rolls Royce and the Yacht he was given in exchange for his corruption "weren't that great."
My wife threw away the paper before I could fill you guys in on the official particulars, but this was another Republican lawmaker that I hadn't touched on before.
He might be out of Florida, but I can't be sure. Can anyone else fill me in?
I guess that when those Republican hypocrites kept harping about "family values" it was the Gotti and Bonnanno "family" they were talking about.
Criticizing Republicans is almost too easy these days. They're taking all the sport out of it.
Don't be dissin' the Bonannos...
Open letter to Mr. Bonanno:
I hereby formally apologize fro comparing your family to the Republican Party because Republican party doesn't have anything on your family when it comes to honor or integrity.
WASHINGTON - Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his Internet communications with teenagers as early as 2000, according to a newspaper report.
The Washington Post reported Sunday night that a former page showed Kolbe some Internet messages from Foley that had made the page uncomfortable. Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline, told the Post that a Kolbe staff member advised the page last week to discuss the matter with the clerk of the House.
By the way:
Kolbe was the married guy from Arizona who was pretending not to be gay at the time. I wish I could have heard that conversation
So Republicans are corrupt. Fine.
I happen to believe that the morals of members on both sides of the isle are frequently little better than those found at the city pound. This is largely because most voters couldn't spell "family values" even if you gave them all the vowels including the 'y' in family (public schools and your tax dollars at work).
Elected officials, Republican or Democrat, all have a primary attribute in common - politician. Are all politicians corrupt and immoral? Of course not. Can individual Republicans and Democrats give their respective parties a bad name, and does the press flock to these carcasses like the vultures they are? Absolutely.
Spending habits and bribes alone don't make a distinction between these two flawed parties - both are addicted to spending my money and taking illicit "contributions" to stay in power.
Now, I have a choice...and I still vote Republican because:
1. A Republic rat is less likely to redefine marriage
2. A Democ rat is more likely to nurture a society of baby killers
Oh, and I'm sure we can find a couple Republican abortion doctors, but dredging up these few examples to "prove" Republicans are best friends with the National Organization for Women is ridiculous. It is almost as silly as anecdotal straw men arguments claiming Republicans are more corrupt than the Democrats.
From James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:
-------------------
"The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, but had a right to be on account of their youth.
The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as soon as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats' attitude toward Clinton is--well, we'll let Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, in an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," explain:
Russert: You're having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?
McCaskill: I do. I think--I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at--
Russert: But do you--
McCaskill: I said at the time, "I think he's been a great leader, but I don't want my daughter near him."
What a ringing endorsement! And hey, say what you will about Mark Foley, at least you can trust him with your daughter!"
---------------------------
So you think that having an affair with a consenting 21-year-old female who comes onto you like gangbusters--
is the equivalent of--
a grown man who gets political mileage out of pretending to pursue sexual predators while actually sexually pursuing (nonconsenting) 16-year-old male congressional pages???!?!!!!?
I guess that's why you're a Republican and I'm not -- because I see a BIG difference.
God doesn't see a difference. Sin is sin. Unless they ask forgiveness, they will both end up in the same Hell.
P.S. - I am not a Republican.
I will give most Republicans this much credit, however. Unlike the party leadership, reaction to the Foley scandal has been outrage on the part of average working-class Repubs. They don't support Foley or his actions, nor do they support any party leaders who sought to cover it up.
The reason ordinary Republicans react this way is because they have the ability to see the difference between right and wrong and place higher ephasis on that than on political power. Democrats, on the other hand, are willing to ignore severe character flaws if it means holding onto power, as they did with Clinton.
Both parties are full of corrupt people. Democrats who argue otherwise are incredibly naive.
Ummmm...
Sin is sin and God doesn't see the difference?
I don't know whether God can see the difference between different sins or not. I don't pretend to undersatnd the mind of God.
Somehow I doubt that what Adolph Hitler did and someone telling a "white" lie register exactly equal on the Sin-o-meter.
Besides, wasn't King David a great King and a "Man after God's own Heart" and didn't he fall far shorter than Clinton did when it came to lusting after another man's wife?
I bet if Clinton had as many wives as King David did, he might have been able to resist Monica. David was just plain greedy, while Clinton only had Hillary and I can see why Clinton wouldn't be that happy in that marraige.
So there we have it Biblical precedent for why someone who falls short when it comes to lust can be a great President, King, Chancellor whatever.
As long as Clinton's affair doesn't impact public policy, I see them as entirely between Clinton, his family and God. He was not a child molestor and he didn't commit any sexual crimes, so it's none of our business.
What Republicans have a high tolerance for is hypocrisy. Clinton did not run as a godly man or on a family values platform claiming to be holier than any other politician.
Personally I think hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. Hypocrisy more than anything else is the reason many people are going to hell, because they can look into the churches and into the holy Republican Party and see a pit of vipers.
That is why hypocrisy is indefensible in my book.
I'm glad you're not a Republican, that comment was directed at Jack Bauer's brother.
Where was the Republican outrage to Giuliani's affair, to Newt Gingritch's affair, to John McCain's affair?
I expect the Holy Republican outrage to at least equal to that directed at Clinton, because these individuals are members of God's Holy Chosen Party and Clinton was a baby killer.
One of those guys will likely be the Republican nominee in the next election.
It's not fair comparing the Republican outrage over child molestation involving boys to the lack of Democratic outrage to a consensual affair involving a 21 year old woman.
I was actually more outraged that Republicans were trying to make carry out a bloodless coup by making that affair an impeachable offense.
When I knew they looked the other way when their own members did it.
If the Republicans want to be the American version of the Taliban, at least they should be consistent.
By the way, it was common knowledge on Capital Hill from people that worked in that administration that George Bush Senior (The one with the brain) had a long time affair with a woman in Vermont whose name was not Barbara.
They spent lots of "quality" time together during his administration, but the Democrats never tried to have George Bush Senior impeached. Might as well try to have him impeached for disliking broccoli.
Severe character flaws do not equal an impeachable offense.
Especially when those severe character flaws are shared by almost all politicians. (I spent years working in politics and lots of time covering politics for newspapers, so I'm not naive, I know what I'm talking about.)
A character flaw is an impeachable offense when that character flaw is the inability to tell the truth under oath
I'm just curious as to why you are so obsessed with the shortcomings of one party, yet refuse to even acknowledge the same shortcomings in your own. That is hypocrisy.
I have never refused to acknowledge the shortcomings of my own party.
The Republican Party is just a lot more dangerous because it controls the Presidency, both houses of congress and the hearts and minds of millions of Christians who don't understand the concept of separation of church and state.
By the way Clinton would have never had to lie about sex under oath if it hadn't been for the Republicans and their support of the Paula Jones lawsuit.
And now let me put my "lawyer cap" on for a moment:
You can't definitively state that he lied under oath (do your research)
1) It wasn't perjury, because it wasn't material to the case and more importantly:
2) The actual definition of "sexual relations" used during the deposition was touching someone with the intent to gratify them. Only Clinton knows whether he intended to gratify Monica. My guess is that he only cared about gratifying himself.
Anyway that is why Clinton cannot and will not ever be convicted of perjury, lying under oath. He will never lose his law license.
Why? Because the stupid Republican lawyers on their stupid vendetta allowed such a narrow definition of "sexual relations," that sexual relations for the purpose of that deposition meant whatever Clinton wanted them to mean.
3) For what it's worth, Clinton never had intercourse with Lewinsky and surveys have shown that a large percentage of the population who engages in the behaviors he engaged in don't consider them to be "sexual relations."
Clinton lied.
Did he lie under oath?
Well, only Clinton can testify as to his own state of mind at the time, so I can't answer that question and neither can anybody else.
If lying is an impeachable offense, the Bush Jr., Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan should all have been impeached because all politicians lie.
Should have Clinton been impeached for lying about sex?
I don't think so, but then I'm not a member of the Republican Taliban.
That's your history and legal lesson for the day.
Didn't they tell you at J-School that your job is to "comfort the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable?"
The Republicans are comfortabley entrenched in power and their arrogance and corruption grows by the day.
I will not stop afflicted them until they are either out of power or they label anyone who disagrees with them a "terrorist" and lock'em up, whichever comes first.
By the way, lots of Nazis considered themselves God-fearing Christians and Hitler a man sent by God to restore their country to it's rightful place.
When I see Bush and Cheney, praying in public I see Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker. It's a show. The real George W. and Cheney are the guys cursing on the air when they think the microphones are off.
Christians with good intentions can be totally wrong about politics and they are often misled by charismatic charletons. If you don't believe me go to Swaggert's church and see how his ministry is thriving.
I expect more from our Church. If they really believe "politics is of the devil," they shouldn't be fawning all over the Republican Party and it's leaders.
"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
Doesn't pay well, but it's fun...
It all goes back to Bro. Branham. He taught us that politics was of the devil. He taught us that denominational systems were anti-Christ. Now we find ourselves in a culture where denominational systems are uniting -- including Protestant with Catholic; why? To fight political battles.
The church today has turned its back on God's Word and placed its faith in a pair of systems of the devil. It has placed its faith in men such as Mark Foley and Jimmy Swaggart, and not in God's Word.
Israel,
What exactly do you mean by "Our Church"? John and I have been discussing that. I think you mean the "message" right? If so, do you expect Bro. Jeff to be fawning all over Hillary??? Please explain yourself.
I haven't seen "our church" (i.e. BCF in Lima) fawning over any politicians, Republican or Democrat. Quite the contrary.
When I say "the church," I am refering to denominational systems in general, and even non-denominationals who cloak themselves in religion and not the Word.
Just to clarify...
What I mean by "our" church is "our" church and that includes BCF in Lima.
Let me say when I was out there I was very impressed by the church, the flock and especially by Bro. Jeff and his sweet and humble spirit.
But what I did see and hear (and it was not just my imagination) was a bunch of Christians who were just a little too comfortable with giving the Republican Party and it's leaders their enthusiastic endorsement.
While it wasn't someone saying "Thus Sayeth the Lord, vote Republican!" from the pulpit, it was disturbing (to me) none the less.
Our church should never get comfortable with granting official imprimatur or endorsement to any party or any candidate.
This never used to happen back in the day, as far as I can recall, but maybe I'm wrong. Did Bro. Branham ever say "politics are of the devil but the Republicans are A-OK?"
I doubt it.
I'm not comfortable with that sort of thing and after a year of constant explanation (first to John on the FF website and now to everyone here) you can probably see why.
I'd just beware of anyone who claims to know how God would vote or what party he would register under.
Israel
I think I've led you to a somewhat wrong impression. I remember sending you a few tapes of Bro. Jeff's sermons. There were tons I wanted to send you after you were here, but I wasn't sure if you'd find that annoying or extremely annoying or what so the few times Bro. Jeff said things about politics I thought I could get by sending you those. I could say, "I just thought you would find this interesting"
Zion had us convinced before we met you that you wanted NOTHING to do with church and that you would never even come to church with us while you were here. You seemed to like it very much so I was a bit confused. I didn't know if you were just being polite or what. Those few sermons were the only times I can remember Bro Jeff seeming to prefer one political party to another from the pulpit. He rarely mentions politics in any form.
You know, don't you, that you can hear sermons from our church anytime at bcfellowship.org?
Bro. Jeff and Bro. Bob Brooks have asked about you a few times over the years. You made a great impression on all of us, too. :)
Mystery solved...
I am not against Church at all, but I am against going anywhere and being bored silly for a couple of hours which sometimes happens at certain churches.
I liked your church very much (aside from the blatant Republicanism) and I'm sure that if I lived in Lima I would go pretty often.
It was a nice Church and nice people.
People in Ohio just seemed really genuinely nice.
And I have Republican friends, I just see it as a sort of congenital defect.
Some are just born conservative and can't help being Republican, but most of them are just confused or uninterested and haven't seen the light yet.
Actually Libertarians are my favorite then come the Independents then Democrats and then the Green Party and then the Republicans.
I still haven't forgiven the Green Party for voting for that looney Ralph Nader (who was financed by Republicans by the way) and putting Bush in office and I still haven't forgiven the Ohio Republicans for putting Bush in office the second time.
I have forgiven you and John because you are no longer Republicans and will never be able to vote for George W. Bush again, no matter how much you want to.
By the way my intolerence for hypocrisy cuts across party lines. I would never vote for Rev. Jesse Jackson, because he claims to be a Rev. and then goes around having extramarital affairs. Rev. Martin Luther King did the same thing.
(Not just because of the affairs but because of the Rev. + affairs combo)
In fact, I would never vote a Rev. for President, Democrat or Republican.
The guys I really want to be President never get elected.
I wanted Bruce Babbit, but all the ladies wanted that handsome young guy from Arkansas who had the affair with Jennifer Flowers.
(We knew he had problems with women before we elected him and all of a sudden we want to impeach him because he's a womanizer?)
I wanted Bill Bradley.
Finally I had to want Al Gore because he wasn't Bush, but he had so little charisma that he lost to a moron even though Al won the popular vote.
(Somebody please tell me how we can call ourselves a true democracy when Bush got to be President even though he got fewer votes? And don't give me that electoral college baloney!)
um...because, historically, the United States has never been a true democracy. I beleive the scientific classification would be representativicus republicus...err...yea...but we all knew that already? Right?
Lol, Israel. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that God actually puts men in power to have the rule over us. So I think we are all campaigning and voting and everything but God is in control.
Bro. Jeff gave an analogy once, not about this exactly, but it still kinda works...we're all on this big ship going to a certain place, we can play shuffleboard or go to dinner or whatever we want to do and we think we are controlling everything, but actually we are still on the ship and we're going where the ship takes us.
Also, even though I am a women and I do vote, I agree with Bro. Branham that women should not be able to vote. It is true, too many silly women vote because they think some guy is cute. It is ridiculous and an embarressment to our gender.
I agree with mom and Bro. Branham. (shocking, I know) I do vote, but I don't think that women should be allowed to vote. Too many morons out there. Woman are too emotional to vote, they pick someone because of the way they look or their more attractive personality, when really that has nothing to do with whether they will be a good president or not. (Shan and Becca, except Becca can't vote anyway...)
Lots of guys shouldn't be able to vote, because they don't like the ugly "smarty-pants" guys either.
Lots of guys vote for people like Bush because compared to Kerry or Gore he's the one they'd rather go have a beer with.
If that trend continues it'l be dumb frat guys as president from here on out.
And what we really are is a Plutocracy not a Democracy, we are ruled by the super-rich and by deep-pocket corporations who can afford to make huge campaign contributions.
Unfortunately the super-rich and the corporations favor the Republicans because they have the same "values."
They only care about money, all the rest is just lip service...
The scientific representation would be "Republicans-we-cheat-and-lie-a-lot-us"
I speak pig latin too...
Post a Comment