Why should Elin Nordegrin Woods stand by her man, Tiger Woods?

I am so fed up with the psycho-babble, social pundits analyzing why the wives of movie stars, professional athletes or politicians stay with their adulterous husbands.  “Oh, if it was not for the money and the prestige these women would not lower themselves to the shame of being cheated on.” on and on and on.

Well, let me tell you!  World, are you listening? 

They should stay with their husbands* because it is the right thing to do, the God thing to do.

Yeah, I’m from the Religious Right.  And, I have just as much right to tell these ladies what they ought to do as the feminist whiners of the liberal mass media.  Isn’t that what they are doing – telling them what they should do?

Specifically, Elin should stay committed to her marriage (and working on full-restoration) with Tiger Woods for the following reasons:

1.  The definition of love has everything to do with sacrifice and nothing to do with selfishness.  Love is patient, love is kind (and occasionally swings the husbands golf clubs – I couldn’t resist). It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered (but anger can arise sometimes at 2:30 am), it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails.  I Corinthians 13:4-8a.  

2. In  his statement on Wednesday Tiger wrote, “Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect.”  Everyone of us on planet earth has received more mercy and grace from God our Creator, Lord, Sustainer, and Savior than we could ever hope to give to another.  I believe that it is that same type of mercy and grace that each of us are called to extend to others, especially those that we have committed to love (family).  Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.  Ephesians 5:1-2  Mercy:  God did not dole out the punishment each of us deserves for the things we have done.  Instead he sent his Son to take our punishment.  Grace:  God gives me the gifts and blessings that I could never earn, no matter how hard I try. God treats me as though I were his favorite son or daughter.

3. God hates divorce.  “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel,”  Malachi 2:16a  And the exception clause “except for marital unfaithfulness (fornication in some modern versions)”, is a modern-day mis-interpretation of God’s Holy Word.   While the other scriptures (Mar 10:11, 12; Luke 16:8; Romans 7:2,3; I Corinthian 7: 10, 39) are very clear on divorce and remarriage, many people find that Matthew 19:9 leaves them puzzled and uncertain as to what the Word of God teaches concerning divorce and remarriage.   Even though one would be hard pressed to find a modern English version of the Bible without it, the holy scripture never contained this exception clause until Desiderius Erasmus, a Renaissance humanist and a Catholic theologian created a Greek-Latin New Testament and added it.  Below is the before and after (English translations) of the Erasmus Latin translation:

• Latin Vulgate (English Translation): And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, such as for fornication,and shall marry another, committeth adultery.
• Erasmus Latin NT in English: And I say to you that whosoever shall repudiate his wife, unless it be for disgrace, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.

So basically, he changed “such as for” to “unless it be for”  – a minor word change but a major change of interpretation.

Now let it be said, “God does NOT hate those who get divorced.  But, He does hate divorce and instructs strongly against it in his Word.

4. Hey people!  It’s time to make a stand and turn things around.  We can not expect to turn our countries social, economic, or political ills around if we cannot even do it in our families.  Suck it up – work for something worth keeping.  Set a standard for you kids, and grandkids.  In his statement, Tiger voiced this very sentiment, “I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves.”   He has voiced before how important his children are to him and that he wishes to be the same kind of father to his kids as his father was for him.  Yes, he blew it here – blew it big time.  But why add a broken family to the mix?

5.  Let’s see what Jesus says when actually asked “flat-out” whether it is okay for a man to divorce his wife. As Jesus was teaching the crowds in the region of Judea…

Some Pharisees came and tested him [Jesus] by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’  So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate.”  Mark 10:2-9 (underlined words are my personal emphasis) 

The most convincing portion of this Scripture set for me is Jesus’ reply regarding Moses’ permission to divorce. He said, “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses’ wrote this law.” The notes for this Scripture from my study Bible explain the phrase“…because your hearts were hard,” this way:  Divorce was an accommodation to human weakness and was used to bring order in a society that had disregarded God’s will, but it was not the standard God had originally intended as vv.6-9 clearly indicate.  The purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1 [Moses’ divorce permission law] was not to make divorce acceptable, but to reduce the hardship of its consequences. 

If this was true in Moses’ day, and Jesus’ day, it sure seems like it is an accurate description of today’s society as well. 

We could do a complex study on the causes and effects of a hard heart, which would fill a book of its own. Just from the sound of it and from the context of how Jesus uses it in these Scriptures, I believe we can deduce that a hard heart is not what God wants us to have.  I do find it interesting that it was not a hard heart toward their wives that Jesus was referring to, but a hardened heart to the things and ways of God.

Elin Nordgren Woods, I do not know how your relationship is with Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.  But, do not harden your heart to God.  Choose God, choose love.

*Husbands, you also should stay with your wives if you find yourself in the same but opposite situation as Ms. Woods. 

For more information on divorce and remarriage, I recommend the following readings:

http://morechristlike.com/except-for-fornication-clause-of-matthew-19-9/

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

Steele, Paul E. and Ryrie, Charles C., Meant to Last, 1986, Victor Books.

Merrick, Robert A., Why Stand? A Resolve to Stand for Marriage Restoration, 2008, Xulon Press http://www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/bookdetail.php?PB_ISBN=9781606473009

Look, I like Rosemary’s Baby  too.

But in the Washington Post yesterday, the acclaimed historian of Soviet era gulags (in other words, a serious person), Anne Applebaum, offers a bizarre and full throated defense of Roman Polanski’s giving a 13 year old girl alcohol and Quaaludes, and then, against her will, sodomizing her in Jack Nicholson’s Jacuzzi! Talk about being a “live and let live” kind of person! Applebaum, in her high-sophisticate generosity toward the boorish ways of this particular man (he is so gifted afterall!), thinks it’s an old crime, and water under the bridge, and so we should just leave the elderly director alone. Here’s part of her cloying defense (and with a dash of armchair psychoanalysis):

He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film. He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.

Irrational punishment? Using the Holocaust to arouse compassion for a child rapist? WTF?! I wonder if Applebaum would make a similar argument for John Demanjuk? You see, Demanjuk is an old man and the Holocaust was a long time ago. I mean, hell, you do stupid things when you’re young.

How could anybody make such cynical and nihilistic arguments against long overdue justice? Oh, Andrew Sullivan has the answer. It turns out that Anne Applebaum’s husband is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed! Apparently, it’s the “Cheney Daughter Syndrome.” Defend the man you love, and especially double-down on that defense when his behavior is at its most reprehensible:

Anne Applebaum created a firestorm over her passionate defense of Polanski and her failure to disclose that her husband, a Polish foreign minister, is lobbying for the dismissal of Polanski’s case.

In other words, stand by your man!:

Oh, and here’s a lovely quote by Polanski (from 1979 and offered to Martin Amis in an interview) bemoaning his persecution by hypocritical Puritan Americans:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Ah, yes. Polanski is the consumate Renaissance Man. Give us that old time Greco-Roman “man-child love” religion. Next, look for a vigorous aesthetic defense of his behavior forthcoming from Camille Paglia.

I kinda want a beer now.

These Betsy Johnson silver stunners are suited for a queen, a first lady, or even just an Island Shoe Girl. Photo by Jean Thornton.

If you like shoes, people will occasionally tease you about your passion.  If you love shoes like I do, people will try to warn you of the dangers of too many shoes.  Yes, I am well aware that walking, biking, and sometimes just standing can be a hazardous task.  Just look at the bruise on my left knee compliments of a wet floor meeting my stylish-but-slick Rampage stilettos. 

 One such cautionary tale that I hear frequently is that of the famous women who let their love of shoes lead to their downfall and not just a slip on a freshly mopped floor.  Two such historical figures I have been warned about are Marie Antoinette (also known as “Madame Deficit” by her not-so-loyal subjects) and the queen of shoe excess, Imelda Marcos.  With the cautionary words “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” running through my head, I do what any good shoe girl detective does, put on my best investigating stilettos and surf the web!

The similarities of these famous, well-heeled ladies are more abundant than one might think despite the centuries separating their rise to fame and political leadership.  It can be argued that both women became political figures because of their husbands’ positions of power, whether inherited or elected.  While both women had a level of notoriety prior to their marriages, without their husbands their lives would have been much different.  Perhaps it was not so much the shoes they wore, but the men they stood beside in them. Tammy Wynette should have consulted with these girls before declaring, “stand by your man!”

Their public held both ladies as examples of grace, elegance, and trend-setting style—at least at first.  However, their public displays of glamour quickly fell out of fashion when their subjects were left with all of the bills but none of the lifestyle for themselves.  Imelda was ridiculed for creating charities that did little to serve those in need and hosting elaborate government ceremonies that appear to have celebrated little more than shameless excess.  In fairness to Marie, it could be argued that the royal family she married into was far more wasteful with money than she was; remember during this time France was involved in expensive wars that were very unpopular.  But wear amazing shoes and suddenly all the world’s blame falls at your feet!

About those famous feet, let’s acknowledge the designer elephant in the room.  Marie and Imelda loved shoes—who can blame them—surely not me or any other girl who has ever tried on handcrafted Italian leather soles!  Marie was rumored to have had 500 pairs and a servant to attend to them; I dare to dream of this day for myself. While Imelda is known for her exorbitant number of shoes, it is hard to find a confirmed number; reports range from 2,500 to 5,400 pairs, but Imelda insists it was only 1,060.  

I can understand that either lady had more than enough shoes. Yes, it can be reasonably argued that it would take years to wear 500 pairs of shoes even if you wore a different pair every day. I can easily have three changes a day and I am not a head of state so I cast no stones!  As much as I hate abuse of power and over spending, as a culture we expect a certain level of indulgence from our political leaders.  Look only at the number of Inaugural Balls held to celebrate the election of a president.  Immediately after the confetti and balloon drop, we begin to scrutinize every penny spent.  There is a fine line that must be walked, in platforms or pumps, between fulfilling all the expectations without exceeding even one by the slightest.  I believe we have to consider the complicated roles in which Marie and Imelda found themselves.

Both of our ladies of leisure had to flee their palaces and their shoes to save their lives.  While Imelda has been tried for various crimes, so far a conviction has yet to stick.  Of her shoes Imelda said to Time Magazine in 2006, “When they opened my closet they found shoes instead of skeletons” and those famous shoes have grown in legend and in reality with their own museum.  As to our young Queen of Excess, Marie’s fate was far worse; she faced the true wrath of French Revolution head on, and I don’t mean that figuratively.  Her shoes and the rest of her wardrobe were also victims of an angry mob that looted and spread her belongings across the countryside as symbols of the revolution.  The only surviving item was a shoe that Marie lost as she ran with her family in a last attempt to save the fairy tale life she had been promised.  Unlike Cinderella, that shoe never made its way back to the ill-fated Queen.  

Is the ultimate lesson that I should give up my shoe ambitions and live a life of flat-footed simplicity?  Before I pack up my shoe closet there is one more victim of the shoe who also had to flee a home: the Dalai Lama.   He was called a “very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes” by Rupert Murdoch.  Allow a moment for the insanity of this comment; look only at the man’s feet once to know he is not wearing Gucci. 

Which I think is the lesson we might learn from all of this: no matter how you try to fill the role you are cast in life, there will always be detractors who try to shift the focus onto more negative things. The true lesson of history is to always have more good deeds in your closet than designer heels.  At the end of life you may only have one shoe left that expresses your personal style; investing in a good reputation may in the end be the better fashion statement.

Bonvile and Annabel; aka The Age of Reason Comes Early

As I mentioned last time, sometimes the characters behave better (i.e., more rationally or with more psychological realisism) than you might expect, which continues here.

For instance, Bonvile’s behavior is, at least from a certain perspective, quite rational. In a culture that highly prized friendship, he lives up to those ideals, and he rationalizes his behavior. He says:

I still prefer my friend before my pleasure,
Which is not lost forever, but adjourned
For more mature employment. (1.2.158-60)

Speaking of mature, you have to be a really good friend to give up your wedding night, even if it was more common in the early modern period not to consummate the wedding on the first night of the wedding celebrations. (I can’t find a citation for this practice right now, but I swear I remember reading it at some point, and it coincides with what is often said in early modern works about postponing consummation, as in The Maid’s Tragedy.)

And Annabel, despite being given a fantastic excuse to leap to conclusions, behaves as though she had some reason to trust the man she has just married. (I know my students would like that part; they get easily fed up with Shakespearean characters who fly off the handle at the least hint of improper behavior without so much as communicating with their loved ones.) She reassures her father:

… I have questioned with my meditations,
And they have rendered well and comfortably
To the worst fear I found. Suppose this day
He had long since appointed to his foe
To meet, and fetch a reputation from him
–Which is the dearest jewel unto man.
Say he do fight, I know his goodness such
That all those powers that love it are his guard,
And ill cannot betide him. (2.4.65-73)

Even if this seems a little more “stand by your man” than “stop him from engaging in dangerous behavior because it’s fundamentally selfish,” and thus maybe a bit more mid-twentieth century than twenty-first century, it focuses on the rational more than the emotional. She does not respond purely with instinct or emotion but says that she has questioned with [her] meditations and compared them to her worst-case scenario.

(Worst-case scenario fans, note that her worst-case scenario is pretty much on the money.)

I’m not really going to defend the end of her speech as being brilliantly rational, but it at least gets chalked up on the side of her not assuming the worst.

Furthermore, when Lessingham insults Annabel to her father, her father assumes she’s innocent rather than guilty, but he also asks for evidence and then refutes it. (Leonato in Much Ado could take notes.)

However, if all of the characters were consistently rational, we’d be a little short on conflict. As a result, this play may be open to the imputation that some of the characters are inconsistent – but in what early modern play is that not true?

My favorite plot twist is still ahead.

Also, there will be a highwayman and a sea battle. What could be better than that?

Bonus quote (from Woodroff, Annabel’s father, urging people to be merry at the wedding festivities when the celebrating has died down because of Bonvile’s disappearance):

Fie, gentlemen, within
The music plays unto the silent walls,
And no man there to grace it. When I was young,
At such a meeting I have so bestirred me,
Till I have made the pale green-sickness girls
Blush like the ruby, and drop pearls apace
Down from their ivory foreheads; in those days
I have cut capers thus high. (1.1. 125-32)

On the one hand, when you come right down to it, it’s a description of sweat.

On the other hand, the high rhetoric here contrasts so beautifully with the content that it ultimately renders it humorous — and yet it still feels genuine and moves me.

Iubirea e una din acele chestiuni care ti se intampla, pur si simplu. Chiar daca nu iti doreai si ti-ar fi fost mai bine fara.

Si din acel moment, tot ce parea dinainte clar si asezat pe un fagas normal, se schimba radical. Si de obicei acel lucru este… cam toata viata ta, asa cum o stiai.

Atunci incepe nelinistea. Si primele dubii asupra perfectiunii tale

Pentru ca nu exista barbat perfect. Pentru ca uneori suntem greu de inteles, iar alteori (si mai) greu de suportat. Pentru ca suntem niste jucatorii ai sansei, chiar daca pierdem de cele mai multe ori, nu ne putem opri.

De aceea, de cele mai multe ori, femeile au nevoie de o iubire imensa care sa le alimenteze rabdarea de care au nevoie pentru a rezista in preajma noastra. Si atunci cand reusesc acest lucru, devin centrul universului nostru.

“Sometimes the last person on earth you want to be with is the one person you can’t be without” – Jane Austen

That Rhapsody.com keeps a pretty eclectic mix of celebrity playlists, including playlists, by, say, Flaming Lips? Here’s the propaganda:

Give it a spin. “Bohemian Rhapsody” … get it? Tee hee!

Speaking of, when last we checked, Rhapsody let you stream a few dozen tracks for free before you had to start typing in credit card numbers.

Fred+1

Have you had time to think about that last post? Have you pondered about what we’ve gained over the last century? Yes, we can vote and we’re not subservient, but we’ve given up a lot to get where we are as women. Very few women are truly content with their lives. I know I haven’t been content. I’ve always felt there was something more. My eyes were opened even more by reading Created to Be His Help Meet.

Created to Be His Help Meet by Debi Pearl

Here’s that review I promised. Created to Be His Help Meet by Debi Pearl. Just the name of it kind of made me cringe. I have always felt we should help our husbands and that we were partners. What my eyes were opened to is that the kind of help I normally gave was only creating resentment in my husband.

Debi Pearl basically walks you through the Bible and delineates what it says about the wife’s role. What is a woman’s role in marriage? It does not outline what the husband should do. This book is for women. It is not for men. Don’t buy this book expecting to read about both roles. Pearl is not suggesting that the man’s role is any less important or that he does not have a responsibility; in my opinion an even greater responsibility than the women. But, again, this book is for women.

What I didn’t like about Created to Be His Help Meet

• Debi Pearl gives an example of her husband accidentally throwing trash all over the ground and then slinking off embarrassed. She picks up the trash, no questions asked because of his personality. Even my husband thought that was just wrong of him to do and wrong of her to pick it up. If it were my husband, he could have slinked off, and I wouldn’t have said a word. I wouldn’t have picked up his mess, either. My husband agrees.
• The author mentions several times about how to make an appeal to your husband properly, without nagging, but she never really follows through and tells you how. That was a bit disappointing, but for me, I’m learning that timing and tone of voice is usually the key.
• Mrs. Pearl adheres strictly to the scripture that speaks of women being quiet in church. I do agree that women shouldn’t have authority over men in the church, but I don’t agree that they have to be completely quiet. Anne Graham Lotz is a really great example of balance in this area. She speaks to hundreds, but her audience is women. She never targets men and seems to work very hard at being scriptural.

What I like about Created to Be His Help Meet

• Reading this book is like holding up a mirror and seeing your real self. This part is agonizing, it’s ugly, it’s revealing, it’s gut wrenching. It’s  hard to be honest with yourself. As I read, I would say to myself, “Oh, my gosh. I do that. I’m like that. I’ve said that before. I’ve treated him that way before.” Yuck.
• The author makes you take a long, hard look at your thoughts. You know how I feel about our thought life. Our actions, our words our very life comes from our thoughts. She calls it Stinking Thinking and even gives some related statistics.
• One chapter is on the three types of men. Very interesting. Very insightful. It helped me to know what type of guy I am married to. Marv’s actually a combo of two of them and when I read the description, I could see how I could get frustrated not knowing his bent.
• My sister-in-law and I both agree that some strange pressure was taken off our shoulders after we absorbed the information in this book. What a relief! We had both been trying to control and micro-manage our husbands. I have long worried about making sure my husband made no mistakes and looked good to everyone. I’m not his conscience or his mama. God is big enough to speak to my husband about things he needs to deal with.
• My husband has started serving me and doting on me and loving on me and making me breakfast in bed (when it’s not mother’s day) and cooking supper once a week and fixing things around the house (that I didn’t even ask him to do) and has been all around sweeter than ever before. He has turned into that knight in shining armor I always wanted. Woo Hoo! Wow! Shazam! It’s weird…
• Debi Pearl never indicates that we should be doormats. She is a strong woman and says a virtuous woman is:

“Not a mousy, voiceless prude. She is confident, hardworking, creative and resourceful. Her first virtue is that the heart fo her husband is safe with her. “

With any book I take the meat and spit out the bones. You have to be willing do that to grow. The only book I agree completely with is the Bible as it’s author is the only Being that is infallible. Debi Pearl is human and give her opinion, some of which I don’t agree. But the biblical truths that she brings to light are life changing. Just ask my mom and my sister-in-law and many others who have been willing to become what we were created to be.

Have you read this book? Maybe not, but you have an opinion anyway? Please leave a comment and if you haven’t read it, get a copy and let us know what you think!

LOVELY THING #9: BEING MARRIED TO A KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR!

LOVELY THING #10: NOT HAVING THE WEIGHT OF THE WORLD ON MY SHOULDERS

LOVELY THING #11: BREAKFAST IN BED

I PROMISE…THIS IS THE LAST TAMMY WYNETTE VIDEO

THIS IS MY NEW MOTTO

I’ve been trying very hard recently to really follow and honor my husband.  So on Sunday when he sprang the news that we were going to a class on volunteering so we could be approved to work in the kid’s ministry, I went along without complaint.  We got to church, checked in the kids (except for Trae who was going with us to be approved, as well) and then he said, “Maybe we should go to the class and then to service.”  You lost me there, buddy.  I had no breakfast and had left home sweet home with a roast in the oven.  Just the memory of the smell made me hungry, not to mention I was prepared ahead of time for lunch.  It’s a good feeling to know you planned ahead, managed your home the women used to.

Off to the class we went and then he made the decision to go to service.  In class we found out that 999 on the screen means they’re shorthanded and need a volunteer.  Up pops 999.  Guess who decided he should go?  Well, it wasn’t my son!  Yep, it was Marv.  (So you mean my roast is probably burning and you’re going to go volunteer??)  Yes, of course, you should go and yes, I’ll stay here with Trae.

–Ironically it was one of the best messages I had ever heard.  Simple and straight to my heart.  I won’t tell you about it now as I want to really tell you about it and give you the link to the church website to download it for yourself.–

Church ends, I pick up the kids, no Marv.  A point to note–I had put that roast in around 9:00 am and it’s after 1:00 pm.  We sit down, no Marv.  Ah, here he comes.  One of the kids tells him the volunteers can go upstairs for a Christmas Open House and goodies.  Should we go?  Calmly I remind him about that roast calling our names from the oven.  In my mind I was yelling, though.  We have to control those thoughts or they’ll sneak out one day.  Remember that

“The good person out of the treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” Luke 6:45 ESV

As I opened the door of the house, I knew the dreaded had occurred.  Not just too done, but burned to a crisp.  I mean the kind of burned to a crisp that you have to take outside, because when you take the lid off smoke pours out.  I was so furious.  Doggone it!  I had planned ahead and was taking care of my family!  It had smelled so good and I had planned ahead!  I was trying to control myself and started unloading the dishwasher.

What are we going to have now?  Can I help you? Are you kidding, man?  You were trying to serve the Lord and caused me to burn my roast!

Is that not the most foolish thing you have ever heard?  Have you ever gotten mad over something so petty as a piece of cow?  If a friend had been in need and I burned the roast, would I have given her the cold shoulder?  If I had forgotten it and it burned, would I have given myself the cold shoulder?  Ridiculous.  This man is the same man who the day before brought me breakfast in bed and I’m going to be ugly to him over meat.  And he was trying so hard to lead us into servanthood and was so joyful!  I snatched that joy away as sure as I burned that meat.  Honestly, I should have thought ahead and turned the meat on low.  Ouch!  I was really to blame.

But what was in my heart?  Just pure ugliness.  And that’s what came out.  It wasn’t just words, it was a heart issue.  It was my thoughts and how I’ve had the tendency to look on my sweet husband negatively.   There was more stinking in my house than the roast.

Having this happen was such a test from the Lord.  I failed miserably.  I’m ashamed to even tell this story, but like I’ve told you, I’m real. I did let it go and we had pizza for lunch.  I also apologized later.  I’m so sorry that I made him feel that way.  He had no idea lunch was burning.  He would never have done something like that on purpose.

I’m also going to tell a little story I heard today.  There was a woman who had for days  reminded her husband over and over about checking their water supply. (They live on a farm and have a spring)  He didn’t and they ran out of water.  She couldn’t do any dishes or laundry or anything.  Boy was she aggravated, downright angry.  She would normally make him feel so badly with her words.  On this particular day, however, she gave him a call and told him gently.  It was so sad, because he felt so bad about himself.  She genuinely hurt for him instead of blasting him with her words.   He would have to leave work early to get water.  How would she treat him when he got home?  What would you do? (leave a comment if you like)  I’ll tell you the rest of the story tomorrow.

I’ll leave you with these words–Take Heart–You can change the way you speak to your husband by changing the way you feel about him.  Only you control this part of your life.  Don’t be discouraged, just be determined to see your husband as the man that God gave you to so you could be a blessing (not a curse).  Ask the Lord to help you.  He is so faithful to forgive our nasty attitudes and help us to have sweet spirits when we ask Him.

LOVELY THING #3:   FORGIVENESS

How precisely fitting.  McCain says Carly (pardon me, Ms. Fiorina) is, well, just great.  She says he couldn’t run a company like Hewlett-Packard (known, of course, among geeks and cognoscenti as “HP”).  Oddly enough, he doesn’t mention her any more.  Must be his age.  He is around 72, after all.  Think of it.  That’s one guy worse than my wife and me together when he’s in a bad mood.  In control of nuc weapons?  Eh.  Is there maybe like a fast train to the Moon (Robert Heinlein, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress)?

–Glenn

Its nice to hear from Lieberman, and great to hear from Thompson, and President Bush, But

Palin is the new star here and She will be the one people will tune in to hear and see.

I just can’t wait to sit back and soak up the Glow.

Don’t get me wrong all of the Rebublican speakers are great and it is awesome to have Liebermann indorseing McCain. Only fred Thomson can articulate the true conservative cause and I am always interested to hear George Bush, a man who will be given his due many years from now.

But Sarah Palin is the Bomb right now!

Move over Men and let the Lady speak!

Don’t be surprised if she comes off sounding more like Margaret Thatcher than Hillary Clinton. I am expecting Sarah Palin to resonate with the American people like no one has in a long time. If she comes off half as confident and articulate as she has been in the past, she will knock the socks off the viewing public. Obama will soon be the second most dynamic speaker in this election.

The Dems are use to bullying people around and having them cower in political correctness obedience, but not this time. Sarah Palin will stand up to their bashing and turn the tables over on their smears. Tonight we will hear a strong confident conservative woman speak from her heart and her head. (riggword)

Go get ‘em Sarah!

*** *** ***

From Hot Air:

GOP convention, night two: Thompson and Lieberman

posted at 7:21 pm on September 2, 2008 by Allahpundit

Here’s your comment thread. 7 p.m. ET on C-SPAN; watch online if you’re not near a TV. Bush will speak via satellite at some point and then it’s Fred plating bleeding chunks of red meat and Joementum reprising Zell Miller — but kinder and gentler! — in primetime. (More Hot Air)

From Michelle Malkin:

RNC lineup: Open thread; Update: President Bush mocks “the angry left;” Fred on Sarah: “Breath of fresh air;” Liebs addresses his “dear friends”

Scroll down for updates…

President Bush will address the RNC tonight by satellite.

Also on tap in prime time slots:

First Lady Laura Bush.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

And Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman.

FWIW, here’s what GOP insiders are saying about the post-Gustav convention shake-up.

With the base energized, let’s hope Fred Thompson brings on the heat and some no-bull, red-meat inspiration. He’s got a golden opportunity to capture the conservative zeitgeist.

Get your popcorn ready. (More Malkin)

*** *** ***

From Yahoo News:

Palin reignites culture wars

David Paul Kuhn, Jim VandeHei Tue Sep 2, 9:10 PM ET

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The culture wars are making a sudden and unexpected encore in American politics, turning more ferocious virtually by the hour as activists on both sides of the ideological divide react to the addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket.

The campaign of Democrat Barack Obama put up an ad in at least seven key states Tuesday lambasting GOP nominee-to-be John McCain as an enemy of abortion rights.

At the Republican convention here, former Tenn. Sen. Fred Thompson took a shot at Obama’s stand in favor of legal abortion.

Thompson made this case: “We need a president who doesn’t think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.”

That reference, perhaps obscure to most Americans, will be instantly recognizable to social conservatives. At the recent Saddleback Church presidential forum, Obama told pastor Rick Warren that the question of when life begins is “above my pay grade.” And the phrase “newly born” refers to Obama’s opposition — on technical grounds rather than the merits, he said — of a “Born Alive Act” while in the Illinois legislature.

The selection of Palin — a new heroine of social conservatives — has helped reignite not only abortion but also other flash-point issues in a way few of McCain’s other vice presidential options would have done.

Conservatives see her as a kindred spirit who lives her anti-abortion words in the most profound way: by giving birth to a child she knew would be born with Down syndrome. Gun owners see her as authentically one of them: a hunter with a passion for the outdoors and gun freedom. (more)

*** *** ***

And the Left continues to bash Sarah

From Michelle Malkin:

P.D.S. alert: Us magazine’s partisan hit job

The next time you’re waiting at the grocery stands and tempted to buy Us magazine, stop and think again. Unless you’re buying it for oppo research, you may not want to put money in the pockets of rabid partisans who have turned their gossip rag into a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party.

This is the cover of the latest issue of Us:

Now, let me remind you who and what Us magazine put on its June 19, 2008 cover:

A source forwards the following e-mail from former Clinton operative and Us weekly flack, Mark Neschis, that went out to all media in St. Paul: (Complete Malkin Article

***

Another Malkin Article on the left’s bashing of Sarah Palin and Conservative Woman:

The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse

My syndicated column today takes a broader view of those suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome and assesses the longtime signs and symptoms of progressive Conservative Female Abuse by the Left. Yes, I speak from personal experience. Been there, done that. See also: Unhinged. See-Dubya blogged over the weekend about the Palin-haters’ fake bikini photo mania. Again: Been there, done that. Now, those fake photos of the governor are spreading like kudzu. See here, here, and here. It’s all coming soon to a Democrat rag-masquerading-as-a-tabloid or a Democrat tabloid-masquerading-as-a-manstream newspaper near you. (Malkin)

*** *** ***

Sarah Palin is not Backing down

From Hot Air:

Palin goes on offense in Troopergate, releases affidavit

posted at 10:42 pm on September 2, 2008 by Allahpundit

Everyone knew it was coming but I thought they’d wait longer to do it. Presumably they decided to take advantage of the raging river of information and push it out now rather than wait until things quiet down, when the media can focus all of its attention on it. Here’s the PDF. The recitation of facts is only around 10 pages; pay special attention to the short section on the Bailey phone call, which is where she’s most likely to have problems. This is, ostensibly, a legal document written for ethics investigators, but the true aim of course is to put the public on notice about her former brother-in-law’s “eccentricities” so that if she’s found guilty of crossing an ethical line she can claim she acted the way any good daughter or sister would when family’s threatened. The defense, in other words, will be that she’s morally right even if she’s ethically wrong.

Not the actions of a woman ready to pull an Eagleton, needless to say.

]]> http://chadwickivester.com/2008/08/27/hillary-stand-by-your-man-not-your-obama/ Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:37:06 +0000 chadwick http://chadwickivester.com/2008/08/27/hillary-stand-by-your-man-not-your-obama/

Hillary, Stand by Your Man . . . Not Your Obama!

Last night was a crucial time for the entire Democratic Party. You better believe that every word uttered from Hillary’s big mouth was precisely calculated!

I am so honored to be here tonight.

You know, I’m — I’m here tonight as a proud mother, as a proud Democrat…

… as a proud senator from New York…

… a proud American…

… and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.

(Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention)

The beginning of Hillary’s speech, in our opinion, was the saddest part of her liar, liar, pantsuit’s on fire/ Obama-lovefest speech, last night. Not one time did Hillary make reference to Bill, her beloved husband!

If it were not for Bill:

• Hillary could have never conceived sweet Chelsea . . . hey, it takes two! could not be a proud mother.
• Hillary would never have had the invaluable experience of answering the White House phone at 3 A.M.! She never would have had the unspeakable privilege to ever utter, “Bill, it’s for you!” 

Our advice to Hillary:

 . . . let the wife see that she respects and reverences her husband [that she notices him, regards him, honors him, prefers him, venerates, and esteems him; and that she defers to him, praises him, and loves and admires him exceedingly].(Eph 5:33) AMP

Can you imagine four years of this?

She is the most unappreciative, angry, discontent multi-millionaire in America. How arrogant of Michelle to give a speech that makes it sound like she is the only one who knows what it is like to care about her children. How disingenuous to say that between her and Barack they could not come up with a few dollars to help his mother out. These two just spew out hatred for America in ways that would make Saul Alinksy, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan proud.

Warning Watch at Your Own Risk

Feel Free to Abort Video When Your Stomach Turns Sour.

Of Course Mr. Obama has the answer for all of America’s ills

Much More Fun to Watch

If we could all just save coupons, and

Bath our children at the same time and

Buy cloths that are unisex so we can hand them down and

Give them a scooter to get to school then

We can save our children from the ravishes and destitution of

Growing up in America

*** *** ***

Michelle’s Latist Rant

You Got to Love Barack!…Now!…or Else!

From Michelle Malkin:

Or else what, Michelle?

Quote of the morning:

“You need to celebrate what [Sen. Obama] represents even if you don’t vote for him,” Mrs. Obama says.

– Michelle Obama in an interview aired last night with black network TV One’s Roland Martin.

I need to? Really? Or else what, Michelle? (more Malkin)

*** *** ***

Hugh Hewitt has quotes from Michelle’s “What’s Wrong With America” Speech,

Posted by: Duane R. Patterson at 12:16 AM From the Women For Obama luncheon on July 28, 2008, here is more of Michelle Obama’s outlook on the state of American society, from the eyes of a woman.

Michelle Obama – 1

And then we have to get them to vote. That’s what we have to do, because if there’s one thing that I’ve seen out there as I’ve traveled around the country over this last year is that women need an advocate in the White House now more than ever before, more than ever before.

Michelle Obama – 2

See like all of you in this room, I wear a whole lotta hats, lots of hats going on. I’m a working woman, I’m a daughter, I’m a sister, I’m a best friend. But the one role that I cherish the most that you’ve come to know is that role of mom. My girls are the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning, and the last thing I think about before I go to bed. And I don’t care where I am – on the campaign trail, in a fundraiser, sitting in the back of a van somewhere, I am worried about how my girls are doing, about their well-being, about their stability. So for me, policies that support working women and families, this is personal. These are the issues that I carry in my heart every single day.

Michelle Obama – 3

And it’s even harder if you’re a single parent. Often times, they work more than one job just to keep ends together. And that doesn’t include the jobs that happen when you come home from work. Those jobs, quite frankly, that still fall predominantly on the laps of women, things like getting the laundry done, making dinner, nutritious dinners, because you can’t just make a dinner. It’s got to be a nutritious dinner grown with good, fresh, clean food. That takes time, trust me.

Hillary Stands By Her New ObaMan With Hopes Of The White House.

Hillary Stood By Her Man Bill All The Way To The White House.

Somtimes A Woman Just Has To Shed A Tear For Her Man

Yep, all of the news is that Hillary will concede and then hold on to her delegates. That’s happened before and this action will definitely get the attention of the media and America. The Dem convention will be exciting, the Republican convention will be dull.

This will give her more power and a greater audience at the convention.

Is she looking for the V.P…..
Is she looking for a cabinet position…..
Supreme court……
U. N. for Bill….
a pardon for Rezko…….

Or is this a Cassius Clay style Clintonist Rope a Dope?

What up?

A Savage Politics commenter states:

SD Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 12:48 am

Hillary has nothing to gain by signing a deal with Obama; he will not be able to deliver as he will not be elected President. Hence, she will go for the kill. But not now.

Michelle Malkin has a post:

Tonight: Hillary exits, Obama exults, McCain exhorts; Update: McCain praises “my friend” Hillary; Obama clinches, McCain speech bombs; Update: Hillary congratulates her “friend” Obama, “committed to uniting the party;” “I will be making no decision tonight;” Update: Obama thanks his grandmother and Hillary

By Michelle Malkin • June 3, 2008 07:06 PM

Definitely a two-popcorn bag night if you’re a political junkie. It’s the final Democrat primary night of the campaign season. Polls close in South Dakota at 9pm Eastern and in Montana at 10 pm. The scene is set for Hillary’s farewell.

With grace or gritted teeth?

Expect a strained mixture of both–with a large dash of “I am Woman, Hear Me Roar.”

As for those VP rumors, I’m not buying it.

Meanwhile, Obama gets ready to party.

From the New Nixon Blog:

More Evidence For The Unity Ticket

June 4, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, History

From David Greenberg, a analysis of the Democrats’ lost opportunities for reconciliation following Sen. Kennedy’s assassination in 1968:

[Eugene] McCarthy’s refusal to extend a hand to disoriented Kennedy supporters after June 6 left the party sundered, directionless, and ripe for defeat.

Greenberg posted that on Wednesday at 7 a.m. Eastern time. That gave Obama’s speechwriters time to read it before finalizing the candidate’s fulsome tribute to Sen. Clinton in his St. Paul speech last night.

<!– –>

ABC News says:

Clinton’s Historic Bid Falls Short

Former First Lady Battled to Be Nation’s First Woman Presidential Nominee

By KATE SNOW, ELOISE HARPER and ED O’KEEFE
June 4, 2008

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s decision to end her historic bid for the White House and ceding the Democratic nomination to Sen. Barack Obama, ends a long, often bitter battle for the right to challenge Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general election.

What Would Bill Do?

Pat Neshek is out of the Minnesota Twins lineup, likely for the rest of the year. He has an acute partial tear of the ulnar collateral ligament in his right elbow, as shown on an MRI from Friday, May 9, 2008. Neshek and the organization are hoping he won’t need Tommy John surgery, as that would put him out for most of the 2009 season as well. According to twinsbaseball.com, Neshek said doctors feel the injury can be treated with rest and rehabilitation. “We’re going to prepare for Opening Day next year,” Neshek said. In the meantime, will he still be able to update us on his status in his entertaining and informative blog, On The Road With Pat Neshek? The rest of the story, after the jump…

Neshek injured his arm in the top of the eighth inning against the Chicago White Sox. He said he felt something “tweak and roll over” – much like his unique sidearm pitching. When answering how that all began, Neshek said:

“I actually was drafted by the Twins out of Park Center High School in Brooklyn Park throwing over the top. That same day of the draft I was hit on the forearm … during our last high school game. It hurt so bad throughout the entire summer I was not able to pitch but was able to play shortstop. While playing short the only position the throwing didn’t hurt was sidearm. When I attended Butler in the fall I was able to go off a mound again and try to throw. Everything felt excellent. … My coach at Butler … said that he didn’t recruit me to throw that way but he liked what he saw. … I’ve been that way ever since. The Twins … drafted me again this time throwing from a completely different angle.”

Even throwing sidearm, Neshek has enough strength to deliver a 96 mph fastball. Neshek has a lump in his forearm from where he was struck. Still, he looks pretty good.

Since being called up to the major league level, he earned the role as the team’s primary setup man last season and went 7-2 with a 2.94 ERA. Despite having good depth in the bullpen, with Matt Guerrier, Jesse Crain, Juan Rincon and Dennys Reyes all being possibilities to fill his position, Neshek will be missed the rest of the year. Jesse Crain’s recent performance may give him an edge, even though he had surgery on his right shoulder a year ago. He’s finally ready to play back-to-back days. Using twitchy Joe Nathan for both part of the 8th and the final inning is also conceivable, especially at home, according to manager Ron Gardenhire.

Pat Neshek was born September 4, 1980 in Madison, Wisconsin. He grew up in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota since he was five years old. He is an avid autograph collector, estimating his signed cards at over 5000. He cites the Kirby Puckett one he got when he was six as one of his best memories. That’s probably why he’s such a class act, signing autographs whenever possible and offering on his website to sign anything sent to him. Doesn’t he look darn cute doing it, too?

Neshek is devoted to fans in this regard, clearly putting in the time to provide signed cards, and has said:

“When any player signs for Topps it needs to be watched by a Topps official or someone that can certify that I actually signed the cards and no one else like my wife or brother jumped in and signed a couple (this has happened in the past with players). In my case the person in charge of watching me was Evan Kaplan, director of trading cards for the MLBPA. Evan had to sign an affidavit swearing that he would watch me sign every card. “

Hopefully he’ll have time to continue signing autographs and blogging while sticking to his rehab while he waits for his arm to heal. Then he can resume his role as the set-up man for the Minnesota Twins! If nothing else, his sense of humor should get him through.

Clearly, from this video, he’s one tough SOB.

Nevertheless, I’d recommend meat and potatoes while he’s on the mend.

Un post pas long, surtout que je ne regarde pas les émissions en question, je ne l’ai vue que sur internet et elle chante mal. Pourtant, vu que j’adore le kitch, j’aime bien (je rappelle que je suis fan de chikichiki, c’est dire ; mais c’est vrai que lui, au moins, on sait que c’est du deuxième degré ; Cindy Sander, nous on le sait, mais elle?).

Enfin j’aime bien à petites doses.

Bon alors quoi?

Un post chez Bauréale, le mystère Cindy Sander, puis un post chez Ron l’infirmier, très émouvant, du coup je vais sur le Post (que je ne lis jamais ; un peu la honte ; mais je lis bien des conneries sur Yahoo ) pour l’interview citée dans le post et je trouve Cindy, vu de l’extérieur, normalement nouille, et l’émotion de Ron un peu excessive (journaliste novice?).

Qu’en penser?

Moi, j’ai du mal à pleurer (j’ai été un peu triste à la lecture du post de Ron, mais ça m’a passé). Assumons. Les images télévisuelles tendent à émouvoir ou exalter. Enfin tendaient, là elles cherchent plutôt à faire parler. ça marche. Bon, elle est nouille, elle passe à la télé, on se rit d’elle, elle sera oubliée dans un an. Ben oui c’est pas rigolo, mais il en faut toujours un. Si c’est pas elle, ce sera quelqu’un d’autre. Je dois avouer que le sens de tout ça m’échappe : on fait des émissions nulles auxquelles participent des chanteurs nuls. Bon, et là ô surprise, c’est bien une chanteuse nulle qui surnage momentanément, mais pas celle qu’on avait prévu. Bon. Peut-être devrait-on sortir la tête du poste ?

Mais je ne mets pas sa chanson, faut pas pousser, je me rabats sur Chikichiki, chanson que j’adore toujours autant. Et puis j’espère qu’il va faire un tabac. Moi mon rêve c’est pas la Starac, c’est d’être Early Adopter. Je suis Early Adopter de Chiki Chiki. Enfin, encore faut-il qu’il soit adopted après, sinon je suis, comme d’habitude, à côté de la plaque.

Comme j’ai honte de parler de Cindy Sander et de confesser pour la deuxième fois mon coupable goût pour Chikichiki, je mets à la suite une vidéo extraite d’un film que tous ceux qui ne l’ont pas vu DOIVENT TOUTES AFFAIRES CESSANTES ALLER VOIR OU SE PROCURER. De quel film s’agit-il?????

(On est toujours aussi peu de choses, hein?)

After all, he’s just a man.

I can’t imagine being her and I think from now these men shouldn’t drag their wives or partners up there on stage with them when they announce such disasters!

It just makes them look like bigger jerks..you know?