I knew it was going to deal with the difficult topic of abortion, so I was interested. As I watched and read, it went beyond interest. The story is compelling, as it represents a very real group of people–survivors of abortion. This story is of a girl who discovers she was adopted, and the reason is that she was a survivor of a botched abortion. Now, if that isn’t compelling enough, watch this:

I know, right? So, this is what I will be doing next weekend. I urge you to support, promote, and seek out this film for the healing that can come to so many.

This month, in my home state of Alabama, I witnessed a layer of my beloved liberty’s protection be peeled away forcefully, against the will of many of the people of my state, and beyond the understanding of the rest. I don’t mean that insultingly, though you may take it that way if you wish. I simply mean that when the law, which I will explain, is held up to the light of history, it becomes far uglier, frightening, and obviously a slap in the face of liberty.

The law, under the well-meaning (perhaps) guise of immigration reform and enforcement calls on police to check the immigration status not only of those suspected of a crime, but also of anyone questioned by police, for any reason. So, police are given the power, previously not possessed, to demand proof of citizenship from any person in the State of Alabama. You, me, anybody.

Secondly, it uses the intimidation of the public school system (whether intentional or not) to check on a state level the residency/citizenship of every public school child and their parents. These statistics are reported to the state annually, as numbers—not names. Yet. There is nothing in this law that removes the right of every child living within a school district to receive a public education, regardless of their status, or the status of their parents. However, the act of collecting this data in itself is certainly intimidating to someone without documentation. And it is a very small step to using our schools and school administration as law enforcement/reporting of names to police.

There are many other details to the law, including making it illegal to rent a property to a non-legal resident, give a non-legal resident a ride in your private vehicle (this one was struck down by the courts) and many other laws that affect private business, housing, employment, and education. It is the most far-reaching of such laws enacted in any state in the nation.

When we look back to the great failings of our world society, such as slavery, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansings around the world, and all other losses of liberty by almost any people-group, there is a consistent theme. Two things are cited, almost to the exclusion of all others, as the justification for actions taken. Safety and money. Whenever a leader presents a case for the removal of liberty, the first one they always mention is safety. “We must do this for our security!” they say. “We must keep our children safe from the influence/invasion/violence/etc of _____.” Fill in the blank with “Jews”, “Africans”, “other people who don’t look or think like us”.

Then the money talk begins. Hitler used speech against the Jews that we would NEVER hear in the US about Mexicans. He claimed that Jews were harming the German economy, and that they were taking jobs and money rightfully belonging to the Germans. Now, we have never heard such inflammatory, baseless arguments against our southern neighbors, have we?

Now, to address the first argument, safety, let me acknowledge here that there is a legitimate crime argument to be made at the Border States. Texas, Arizona, and California have all experiences measurable, real increases in violent crime (primarily related to drugs and gun-running) as a result of inadequate security at the border with Mexico. However, such a statistic has never been established with any verifiable data in any non-border state. For the most part, based on all of the evidence available, immigrants regardless of their legal status commit crimes at a LOWER rate than native-born citizens. As a matter of fact, as the percentage of undocumented population rises in the US, crime continues to fall. Immigrants of all legal statuses are 5 times LESS LIKELY to be in prison than native-born citizens.

This presents a real problem to those who would tell you that we must demand “papers” on every person in Alabama in order to “protect the public”. Their argument is simply that in order to protect us from the dangerous non-citizens, we must all give up our civil rights. We can no longer travel with the right to not identify ourselves to law enforcement whenever they demand it. We can no longer enroll our children in school without providing not only THEIR documents proving citizenship, but OUR OWN. We must also yield any right to privacy we have between ourselves and our employer, and between the employer and the State. At every turn, we must be documented, recorded, and verified. Another layer of liberty stripped for the cause of safety and security.

So, if they’re not coming across the border to rape, murder, and rob us, they must be coming to take our jobs! Which leads us to the money argument. Illegal immigrants make us all poorer. This is the argument that would probably make me laugh if it didn’t make me so fire-breathing mad. Here to take our jobs? I will start by saying that I have never been fired from a job because an employer wanted to replace my smooth, lulling Southern accent and advanced University degree with that of an undocumented immigrant. Never. But let’s just say, for argument sake, that it happens all the time. Let’s say that those workers come in and take my highly-specialized technical job and begin doing it for less money than I would. And the employer pays payroll taxes on their income, and so do they. Because they have to. Well, then they decide to submit an income tax refund at the end of the year, like we all do. But, this is where the “they are taking our money” argument begins to crack. Non-citizens don’t get tax refunds. They do something NONE of us do. They pay their full tax burden and get no deductions, refunds, or adjustments. No tax credits for those solar panels they installed or the electric vehicles we all know Mexicans love to drive. They get nothing back, and pay the full burden, where we would recover at least a portion of the tax.

But, lets face it, that doesn’t really happen that often. Most of the jobs we are talking about are not highly technical. There are many educated workers from other countries who come here legally and “over-stay” their welcome, or who come over and gain an education here and are therefore qualified for jobs that require technical expertise. However, for every highly educated worker, there are many, many times as many workers who do manual or skilled manual labor. These workers often are paid in cash, receive no insurance benefits, time off, or sick pay. They are paid wages that far exceed what they would be paid in their country of origin, but that are low compared to what a US worker would demand for the same job. As a matter of fact, in Alabama, crops are currently going un-harvested. Workers who have been dependable for years in our state have packed up and left. Farmers have been left with few options. Even with record unemployment, they are finding these workers difficult to replace. When they are replaced, if the crops are not ruined, they may have to pay higher wage prices. Wage prices, obviously, are directly tied to the price of goods, making our food prices higher, and the already struggling farmers, poorer. See: http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/sep/30/immigration-law-hurting-alabama-farmers-ar-2490782/

Now, what happens when we pay someone cash who is not paying taxes? Well, they cannot legally use most of the services we traditionally associate with taxation, such as social programs. Undocumented people cannot get food stamps, Medicaid, SCHIP, or most other “free” government programs. Some of the money they earn is sent to family abroad. Often, workers are supporting not only themselves, but the families they left behind. However, the bulk of wages received by undocumented workers is spent right here in our state. They pay rent to property owners, they purchase groceries, clothing, school supplies. They pay for entertainment, electronics, and household goods. All of this money, as well as the impact of their labor, boosts local economy. The commonly accepted rules of market economics would suggest (or pretty much just say) that adding workers/labor/consumption to a system is a net positive. When you add workers that are contributing more than they are consuming (undocumented workers cannot consume tax-payer services on average, except for education in some situations) but contribute the vast majority of what they earn to the market, the net influence on the market would be expansion, greater cash-flow, and an overall favorable increase in productivity.

There are many other arguments, both valid and some that are just silly, that could be discussed in detail. The economics of undocumented workers is badly misrepresented in our State and our Nation. But, primarily, I want to point out what needs to be shouted from the rooftops all over our state. Our liberty is fragile. It is attacked from all sides at all times. We must not allow those who offer to protect us from other people in the name of safety/security or money/economics to chip away at our personal freedoms out of fear, anger, or misinformation. There is something more worthy to be fought for than the perception of security. Bigger than the promise of easy economic recovery. Vastly more important than huge fences and constant monitoring of the details of your and my life. It’s liberty. She’s vulnerable. She’s being stripped, gradually, by those who present themselves as our protectors. She’s misrepresented, villain-ized, mocked, by those who would diminish her in order to control us more. And we’re letting them do it by not standing up against every infraction of our freedom.

What then is our response? How do we behave with the knowledge that our liberty is being chipped away? Just because it’s primarily aimed at people who are in a different circumstance than you, don’t be fooled into thinking these very laws cannot be tweaked to be used against you. Don’t be complacent in believing that you have nothing to worry about when your original Constitutional protections are whittled away to “protect you”.

I end this post, which was not as eloquent as I would have wished, nor as powerful as the subject deserves, with a quote by Niemöller on January 6, 1946, to the representatives of the Confessing Church in Frankfurt. He was commenting on the mistake he made in not protesting the gradual stripping of the liberties and rights of the people of Germany. He altered it over time, and said it in several different arrangements depending on his audience, but the message remained the same:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

The rich, “those who have benefited the most from this economy” should pay their “fair share”. Those who have benefited the most? Do tell. Did the economy start knocking on people’s doors and handing out checks again? Because I thought that was only to the people who were NOT working, but maybe I’m wrong. Did the economy send telepathic signals with money-making ideas into the heads of these “rich” people? Economy, how dare you! I’ve been here this whole time, being so nice to you, and you haven’t done that for me!

Did the economy give the rich faster patent approval than the poor? Allow them to drive on nicer roads? I want access to these roads. Or my own helicopter, whichever is more expensive.

OR, as oh, I don’t know… LOGIC would suggest, did the wealthy (or rich-dirty-word-spit!) actually benefit this economy the most? Let’s think about this. Who paid for the roads? Tax dollars. Who paid for those tax dollars? Well, according to the CBO, in some rather dry-reading on that website (they should hire facebook to design the way they present information) “In 2007, the highest quintile earned 55.9 percent of pretax income and paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes.” Meaning, the rich people already pay BY FAR the most taxes. The top 20% of earners pay 70% of the taxes.

So, if the liberal speak is right, and those who are benefit most from the economy should pay the most, they may need to check the numbers. Those who create wealth actually create benefit–major benefit–for those who do not create the most wealth. In other words, all those services, roads, agencies, departments, buildings, etc are built primarily by those darn rich folks who laugh at us from their ivory towers. Which means that… wait! WE benefit the most from the economy which the rich have helped create. Dang it! That means that WE would have to pay our “fair share”. I don’t like this at all. Logic. Ripping. Time and space.

So, maybe “fair” isn’t the best way to look at this. Mainly because it wouldn’t help MY cause any, and it’s all about ME. And because fair is a really juvenile, impractical way to look at the world. And though I generally endorse juvenile and impractical, perhaps it isn’t best in this case. And while we’re on the topic of juvenile, isn’t blaming the people who have created the most jobs in this country, pay most of the burden and shoulder the most risk for the prosperity of us all, rather… um… “juvenile”?

My  theory is that, most of the time, the better-looking candidate will win the general election.  Since television, and now the internet, are such a dominant part of any electoral race, we are treated to images of the candidates almost as often as we hear information about them – probably more often, in many cases.  Americans tend to elect Presidents based on who they like.  Since physical attractiveness is a major component of likeability, Americans as a whole are more likely to vote for attractive candidates.  Now, I don’t think that this effect is as strong in the party primaries, possibly because the people who vote in primaries are more involved with the actual issues than the general electorate.   So, the parties nominate candidates based on how liberal or conservative they are, or how good they are at politics, then the general public elects a president based on (1) which party they have always voted for, (2) which candidate they can admit to voting for without being ostracized by their friends, or (3) how good-looking he is.  Since winning the general election in recent years has usually been dependent on swing states,  #3 can carry the election.

Let’s see how this worked in the last few elections:

2008: 

Obama vs. McCain

McCain’s not a bad looking guy, especially considering what he’s been through, but he was clearly overmatched.   Now, the YOUNG McCain would have given him a run for his money.

2004: 

G. W. Bush vs. Kerry

One word:  Lincolnesque.

2000:

Gore vs. G. W. Bush

Pretty much an even race, looks-wise.  AND LOOK HOW CLOSE IT WAS. 

If you review the elections back for several more decades, most of them were won by the better-looking guy.  Those that arguably weren’t (like H. W. Bush vs. Dukakis) usually had some strong mitigating factors (like Bush’s association with Reagan).

So, if the GOP wants to beat Obama in the 2012 election, they need to find a better looking guy to run against him.  Do the hopefuls who were in the New Hampshire debate have any chance against him?   Let’s see: 

Rick Santorum:  He talks like his jaw has been wired shut.  Only his lips move, and his eyebrows make him look sad.  He’ll never win against Obama.
Michele Bachmann:  She is gorgeous. She also doesn’t look like she’s trying too hard to be gorgeous, and she looks intelligent.  I don’t know how being female might affect the electoral calculus, but she might have a shot.   (She also has 23 foster kids!  Oops, relevance alert – back to the fluff!)
Newt Gingrich:  Come on.  As much as I would LOVE having a President named after an amphibian, it’s not gonna happen.  If it’s any consolation, his well-reinforced hair will protect him if he’s ever caught in a natural disaster, like a landslide or a tornado.
Mitt Romney:  O.K., Romney might have a shot.   He’s a bit above average for a politician, looks-wise, and smiles a lot.  It does distract from the slight creepiness.  In the end, though, I think the creepiness would work against him.
Ron Paul:  He reminds me of the crazy uncle that everyone tries to keep off the subject of politics at the family reunion.  Am I the only one who thinks his head is shaped like a triangle?  He’s entertaining.  I hope he sticks around for a while, but he’ll never beat Obama.
Tim Pawlenty:  Yawn.  You could meet him half a dozen times and still not be able to pick him out of a crowd.  He needs to wear a sparkly suit or something.
Herman Cain:  He looks solid, honest and intelligent.  He actually might have a chance.  Although not as young and cool as Obama, he is still a good-looking man.   Repeatedly mentioning his grandkids makes him seem even more dependable and sweet.  I’m tempted to say something about how nice it would be if being a CEO became a viable path to the Presidency, but I’ve already pushed my luck in this post with one almost-relevant comment.

 My conclusion:  Based on my completely frivolous criteria, and completely disregarding their policy or experience, out of the seven GOP presidential hopefuls at the New Hampshire debate, only two have any chance of winning against Obama:  Bachmann and Cain.   Cain, however, is not as smooth and polished as a career politician, which probably will be a problem if he ever debates Obama.  Bachmann has a good command of the facts and figures, plus a confident, well-organized and concise style.  I think she has the best shot.  Now I’ll wait and see what happens!

Michele Bachmann

I’ve seen several articles recently noting that China may soon change its one child policy to a two child policy.  Now, technically, some groups already are subject to a two-child policy.  The one child policy has always applied mostly to the ethnic majority Han, and has often been enforced less stringently in rural areas.  Many ethnic minorities have historically been allowed two children.  Recently, married couples who are both single children are allowed to have two children in many areas.  Lest you think that these changes are out of the kindness of their hearts, the government is trying to mitigate the demographic problems caused by their low birth rate.  Their population is aging and officials are concerned about the declining ratio of working adults to retired adults. 

If I lived in China, I would be happy for the change, obviously.  Unfortunately, though, allowing one more child won’t fix the biggest problems with the one child policy.  The real problems with the policy are the horrifying methods of enforcement, the high rates of abandonment and selective abortion of baby girls, and the occasional kidnapping of babies by family planning officials.  Houses and property can be destroyed or confiscated as punishment for unauthorized pregnancies; relatives can be imprisoned to coerce abortion.  Forced abortions, infanticide, and forced sterilizations are, by many accounts, common.  Chinese government-reported figures claim 35,000 abortions a day.  Many of those are forced.   Often, these forced abortions occur  near the end of pregnancy, and sometimes require killing the delivered child.  Because family planning officials’ careers are dependent upon their provinces’ adherence to the official birth rate goals, some provinces have implemented concentrated campaigns of forced abortion  and  sterilizations. 

In 1998, this heartbreaking testimony was brought before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee of International Operations and Human rights.  It includes testimony from a former family planning official who defected from China in desperation; she could no longer perform the brutal requirements of her job.  It also includes testimony from victims of the one child policy.  Unsurprisingly, the Chinese government does not look kindly upon criticism of its policies and enforcement.  Chen Guangcheng, a blind self-taught lawyer, filed a class-action lawsuit on the behalf of thousands of women who underwent forced abortions in the Linyi municipality of Shangdong province.  In retaliation, Chen was arrested and jailed for four years, then transferred to house arrest in which his wife and young child are under arrest as well.  While Chen was under arrest, his wife was beaten several times, held under surveillance, and only allowed her to visit him three times.  The government’s security teams do not allow internet, telephone, press, or visitors, but Chen made a short film which was somehow smuggled to the outside world.  Following the release of the video, Chen and his wife were beaten so badly by security officials that they could not get out of bed and were not allowed medical care. 

In our own political back yard, the United Nations Family Planning Fund (UNFPA) has strongly supported the one child policy, was instrumental in implementing the policy, and has repeatedly and publicly denied the abuses carried out in its implementation.  Thankfully, in 1985, the U.S. House of Representatives and USAID eliminated funding for the UNFPA under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, citing the abuses of the one child policy.  However, in 1993, the Clinton administration reinterpreted the amendment and restored funding to the UNFPA.  In 2002, the Kemp-Kasten Amendment was again invoked and U.S. funding ceased (saving the U.S. over $40,000,000 a year) until Barack Obama restored U.S. funding to the UNFPA in 2009.  The UNFPA, understandably, is pleased, and praised his prompt action.  As an American, I have no say in China’s policies.  I am, however, horrified that our government financially and politically supports the forced abortion, sterilization, and brutalization of China’s citizens by its government.

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers has more information on the one child policy.

David Hemphill on the first ascent of Papillon (5.10b)

I’ve been thinking about climbing a lot this year.  I miss it.  As I was watching climbing videos recently, I ran across this amazing video of Catherine Destivelle soloing a huge cliff in Mali.  Catherine Destivelle is a French rock climber and mountaineer, born in Algeria, who is now about 50 years old.  The video is absolutely worth watching.  It’s a short documentary-style film (9-1/2 minutes) featuring a cliff-dwelling pygmy ghost town, a witch doctor who plays a surprisingly good trumpet, a bit of fantastic ’80′s climbing fashion, and  awe-inducing climbing.  If your attention span doesn’t allow watching the whole thing, watch from about 4:15 to 5:30, and then from about 6:30 to 6:50.  Warning:  Don’t forget to breathe.

Free soloing (often just called soloing) is rock climbing without a rope, or any protective gear. There’s a (mostly) low-key but long-running debate in the rock climbing community about soloing.  Some people see it as the most beautiful and pure form of climbing, some as a mental discipline that can be rewarding but is only for a few, and some as a grossly irresponsible and selfish pastime.  Several talented and well-known climbers, as well as some talented and unknown climbers, have fallen to their deaths while soloing.  John Bachar comes to mind.  One of the most well-known men in the climbing world, he was an icon.  John Bachar’s father once estimated that his son had climbed 1.5 million feet, unroped.  Bachar died at 52, and left behind a twelve-year-old son.

I used to rock climb quite a bit, and although I haven’t had as many opportunities since my older daughter was born, I plan to get back into it one day.  Climbing is really the only sport that I would say that I’ve been passionate about (with the possible exception of telemark skiing).  I love both trad climbing and sport climbing.  Both styles of climbing use protection; trad climbing uses removable gear carried by the climber and sport climbing uses preplaced bolts along the route.  If done right and within your ability, it is fairly safe.  In 2003, Accidents in North American Mountaineering found 118 reported accidents out of an estimated 300,000 climbers (people who rope up 10x or more per year).  Not all accidents are reported, of course, but many of the serious ones are.  Those statistics include multiple types of climbing; as mountaineering and ice climbing seem to have higher accident rates, trad and sport accident rates may be somewhat lower than 118/300,000.  Soloing, though, is different.  Falling is rare, but unlike most other forms of climbing, if you fall, it’s likely that you will die.  To be fair, most (but not all) climbers stay well within their comfort zone of difficulty when soloing. 

I never soloed, but I have observed it plenty of times.  Thank God, I never saw anyone fall.  I hate being around it because I’m always afraid that I will see someone fall.  The thing that really bothers me about free-soloing, though, is how I feel when it is one of my loved ones doing it, and how I feel when I see someone free-solo when I know that there are people who depend on them.  Husbands, wives, children.  Now, I can understand using it short-term as a kind of coping mechanism to deal with serious emotional issues; if something extreme is necessary to keep someone on an even keel, it’s better than drug abuse.  However, free soloing habitually as recreation for years seems to me to be playing fast and loose with the life of someone’s wife, someone’s husband, someone’s parent, or someone’s child.  The fact that it would be my own life doesn’t help; it’s primarily my own friends and family to whom I am responsible.

None of this diminishes the accomplishments of climbers like Catherine Destivelle.  She is amazing, and I admire her dedication, courage, and hard work.  However, I’m glad I wasn’t the one waiting by the phone while she soloed that cliff in Mali.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think I would “enjoy” the polygamist lifestyle, but I can see its benefits, and I’m not sure that villainizing its members, as our society does benefits us or them. Would I discuss this with my husband? Oh, no. Don’t want that “imagination train” getting started. But, the benefits of having help raising your children, knowing the woman who would be their mother if anything happened to me, being able to have companionship during the years of having little children which can be so lonely…. I get it.

The part I DO NOT get would be the…uh… bedroom portion. Scheduling my love life? No, thank you! Having my husband checking other women out as potential mates? Nope. And, I could never dress like a pilgrim.

My first thought was relief that no Americans were killed, and that the quest for this notorious criminal is over. But then my thoughts turned toward his family. Grief for the children who lost a father and a wife who lost her husband. Grief for a life that would never know the peace that comes from knowledge that clearly never reached him in that compound in Pakistan.

The President’s speech ended, and the news channel switched to pictures from outside the White House, and in New York City streets, and some other shots of crowds gathering, waiving American flags, and shouting “USA” and celebrating Osama’s death.

“Wow”, I thought. “Do I have this wrong? Am I viewing this the wrong way?? Maybe my ‘celebrator’ is broken because of the tornados and the damage and suffering around me.”

It’s just that when the death of my countrymen and women was met with cheers in the Middle East of this “tremendous victory”, I could not believe it. I was incredulous that people could hate someone they had never met. People that had just gone to work that day. People who probably couldn’t name half of the countries in the Middle East anyway, and had no intention of doing them harm. But they knew who WE were, and they were celebrating the blood. Those mommies. Those daddies. Those precious children who would never grow up. Celebrating their deaths? Evil.

For the past ten years, this tall Arab in Afghanistan and Pakistan, trained with US weapons by the US military back in the Cold War days, has been hiding from us. Or, just living his life the way he wants with money and his family and the apparent protection of at least some of the Pakistani government. Ten years that those 9/11 victims didn’t have with their families, that he did. And those children that he had with his wife in the last few years, they were reportedly in the room with him when he was shot in the face in front of them. Now, say what you want about him as a person. What a horrible thing for those children to see. That’s what sticks out in my emotional being when I hear the story. The people who are left.

The US Military did a fantastic job on this mission, as they do on most, of minimizing the human cost. They did their jobs, followed their orders, and are to be commended. We celebrate their victory. But celebrating the death of a father/husband? No matter how horrible he was, I say “no”.

Reading comments/jokes/jeers on Facebook about bin Laden’s death, honestly makes me feel sick to my stomach. This MAN did horrible things. Horrible. However, my heavenly Daddy lost a kid today. The same love, the same compelling desire for wholeness and restoration that my heavenly Daddy has for ME, he also had for Osama bin Laden. I don’t think he celebrated. For years, I have prayed that the Truth would shine through to bin Laden. I have no indication that it happened. You know, I am heartbroken that another person died that didn’t know Jesus Christ. Heartbroken. Not celebrating.

What does it say to the Muslim world that we are celebrating death on TV? I had hoped we would send a different message when the time came. I loved that man. I loved him with a love that came from knowing the Father. I wanted Osama to experience God as a loving Father, not a merciless tyrant. I wanted Him to know him in relationship, not by rules. I wanted Him to replace Hate with Love, Anger with Joy and Death with Life. But that will never happen now. When I speak with Muslim friends about my Jesus, I want them to know that He teaches me to love my enemy. To bless those who curse me. To pray for those who seek to do me harm. I want them to know that nothing could be farther apart from what they have been taught than the Gospel. The Gospel is a message of hope and salvation. Being set free from the rules that are heaped on them by a religion of death and bondage. I want them to know that freedom.

Finally, I will end this LONG post with how I want to be more like bin Laden. I want his passion. I want to be willing to risk everything, to go to whatever lengths are necessary to share the HOPE with people that I have. He used planes, guns, bombs, hate. But the weapon I have is much more powerful. The weapon of the Word. The weapon of the Gospel. It can change a life in an instant for all eternity. Nothing he ever did could touch that. The “fear” he aimed to spread, NOTHING compared to the hope that Jesus spread. And when that passion really gets in me, maybe people will know my name, but I mostly hope they know the name of Jesus. That every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

In case you made it through that long post, and you aren’t sure what I mean by “the Gospel”, let me tell you. Man broke a relationship with God through breaking his commands. We call it sin. It made a huge rift between us, one that can only be spanned by living a sinless, perfect life. The punishment for sin is death. Each and every one of us deserve that. Because of God’s incredible love for us, he came to Earth in the form of man. Vulnerable, giving up his divinity temporarily to live the life of a man. He lived a perfect life as a man named Jesus. At the end of his life, he died, voluntarily on the cross for you and me. He gave us this gift so that we could be restored/reunited in relationship with God. To live out the eternal life he planned for us. All you have to do be restored in relationship, according to the Bible is to believe in Jesus and what he did for you, ask for his forgiveness, and then “confess” or tell others through words and your actions that you have given your life to Jesus. Follow that with baptism which is a sign to the world that your old sin-self has “died” that that your new “free-self” has risen. It’s a new beginning.

I’ll save “inappropriate kids’ movies” for another day, and maybe another author.  I haven’t really seen enough kids’ movies to know which ones are the worst.   Does EVERY Disney movie involve parents dying?   Feel free to enlighten me.

On a recent trip, I bought a book to read to my daughter.  I had to edit it as I read, and unfortunately, she loved the book, so I had to edit it every time.  The book is number 3 in Fish nor Fowl’s first Countdown of Terrible Children’s Books.  Here goes!  I’ve included some photos.  If you can’t read the text in the photo, click on it to enlarge.  The last one in the post is particularly worth a look.

4.  The Giving Tree, Shel Silverstein. – I know, I know.  It’s a classic.  Everyone loves this book.  It made me uncomfortable and itchy when I was a child, and it just gets more disturbing as I get older.  Talk about depressing.  Kid loves tree, tree loves kid, kid uses bits of tree until it is a decrepit, lonely stump and never shows affection or gratitude to the tree…   

3.  Plants Bite Back!, Richard Platt. – This is supposed to be a “Level 3″ reader, which they define as “reading alone.”  Possibly because they don’t want parents of younger children to be horrified.  The book is about plants with interesting defensive and offensive mechanisms, like poison ivy, stinging nettles, and carnivorous plants.   This is the book that I mentioned that I have to edit every time I read it to The Bear.  I’m not sure what age exactly they are shooting for, but it seems a bit early to describe historical methods of torture and execution using plants.  Seriously.

2.  Rainbow Fish, Marcus Pfister (board book edition). – Yes, it’s beautifully illustrated, but here is how the story goes:  A lonely fish is the most beautiful fish in the ocean because of his shiny scales.  Other fish won’t be his friend.  Finally, he agrees to give away his shiny scales, one or two to each of the other fish, until the fish are all the same.  After he gives away PARTS OF HIS BODY to all the other fish, they like him and he has “friends.”  This makes me want to bang my head on the wall.  I’m not sure if the lesson is that everyone has to be the same and if you’re different no one will like you, or that you have to buy your friends, or that if you’re exceptional in some way you have to make yourself average or you’ll be lonely forever.  Aargh.

1.  THE VERY WORST CHILDREN’S BOOK…  *Drum roll*…  Max and Moritz:  A Morality Tale, Wilhelm Busch. -  Max and Moritz are two delinquents who play nasty pranks on everyone in town.   The book goes through a series of seven pranks.  The very first prank they play is tying bread hunks together with string, and then allowing a neighbor’s chickens to eat the bread.  The chickens are then joined by the string, and they get caught in a tree and die:

The eggs are a nice touch.

 The boys continue in this vein for seven pranks.  The end of the seventh prank defies description:

Stuffed in bags of flour...

Dumped in the grinder...

Ground up and eaten by ducks! Yikes!

Did you catch that?  They get EATEN BY DUCKS!!!  Yes, that is the end of this children’s book.  I rest my case.

What could possibly go wrong?

Ack!  I recently ran across this article.  Evidently, after a federal judge revoked the USDA’s approval of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets until an environmental impact assessment could be done, USDA found a clever way around the pesky environmental assessment requirements.  LET THE COMPANIES DO IT THEMSELVES.  To be fair, they’ve been doing this for a while.  It just seems to have been getting a bit more attention recently. 

Great plan.  I can’t think of a single problem.

There are a number of farmers’ groups that have sued Monsanto over the last two decades.  Some sued because of projected economic damage based on genetic contamination of their non-GMO crops; others because of concerns about herbicide resistant “superweeds” and other problems.   I don’t think any of them have made much headway, although I could be wrong. 

On a related note – Pliny, does your pastor have any concerns about you teaching your children that Monsanto is the root of all evil?  Or does he leaf you alone about it?