Rope a DOPE!

Go Sarah! Go Sarah! Go Sarah!

Senator McCain, I tip my hat. This was a left hook from outta nowhere to the Democrats.

Awesome.

Like most of Western Civilization, I know little about Sarah Palin. However, here's what I know. Rush Limbaugh is gushing about her as I type. Hugh Hewitt loves her. The National Review crew, never completely agree on anything, are more positive than negative on the Corner.

I don't think anything the McCain camp could have done would have more effectively taken the wind from the Obama camp's sails than this.

33 Over.

The face of victory.

Yeah, baby.

I Heart Ozzie

I can't help myself. Even though he's the Palehose skipper I just love Ozzie Guillen. His remarks on Jay Mariotti's departure from the Sun Times, taken from the same paper:

''Am I enjoying this? Yes, because he tried to make my life miserable. He did everything in his power to make my life go the wrong way, but he didn't make me miserable because I don't believe him. Maybe if somebody else wrote that stuff about me, then I would put attention on it. And that's what he wanted. He wanted attention. He has to thank me because I gave him a lot of [stuff] to work with. I know I helped him the last four years to make his money, and, obviously, he did not help me at all to make my money.''

Just an aside: I always thought Mariotti was a self aggrandizing jerk (who was nonetheless an interesting read), but I am astounded by the volume of the hatred for that man that is still reverberating throughout Northern Illinois. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to take their digs.

Obama on the Cubs

You know, I wasn't all that offended by Obama's incredibly stupid remark about Cubs fans. When you're a Cubs fan, you expect smack talk from Sox fans and you give in return. (Here's an example: It's always interesting to observe the fans during the crosstown series. Cubs fans show up early for batting practice; Sox fans show up early for the back shaving ritual.

And that's just the chicks).

But it was incredibly stupid, from a political standpoint. I doubt Obama has a clue as to the millions of people he has offended. If he had even the remotest inkling, he would have issued an apology five minutes after making that remark. I generally listen to the Cubs games on the radio, because like so many other Cubs fans I love Pat Hughes and Ron Santo. I hear the crowds cheering during the Cubs' road trips--I hear the crowds cheering for the Cubs. Often, the cheering is so loud that if you didn't know the schedule, you'd think it was a home game. Sometimes, the cheering is louder for the Cubs than for the home team. The expression "Cubs Nation" is not an exaggeration or wishful thinking.

And if you think people won't vote against Obama over this seemingly insignificant slight, you don't understand how "serious" the Cubs Nation is.

Hmmm.

My first impression upon hearing that Obama had picked Joe Biden has his running mate was that it was a safe choice that would neither help nor hurt Obama. Biden, for all of his past plagiarism scandals, is a pretty tame cat compared to some of the other pols out there. Plus, he's old, something sorely lacking from the Obama campaign.

However, It's suprising that the news yielded absolutely zero bounce for Obama. According to Gallup, McCain has actually pulled ahead slightly. This poll was conducted Aug 23-25, during the runup to and beginning of the DNC convention. It appears none of that buzz helped Obama either. Not the kind of news I'd want to wake up to, were I O.

McCain's VP choice by contrast will probably cause a significant shift in polling data, for good or ill depending upon whom is chosen. If Daddy Mac picks Romney I would expect to see a substantial boost as on-the-fence conservatives start to board the Straight Talk Express.

Obama should still be able to look forward to a temporary 15-20 point bounce in the polls after the convention, but after Mrs. Clinton's "knockout" appearance last night at the convention, democrats may be feeling some buyer's remorse about Biden.

GING Chapter 8: New Testament

I was prepared to take Hitchens to task for his rather slovenly and ill informed assault on the New Testament, but I happened to recall that a rather smart joe named Mark D. Roberts debated Hitchens on Hugh Hewitt's radio program and subsequently tore GING a new one at his blog. And I figured, why go to all that trouble to post when somebody else has already done the work far better than I could?

Dr. Roberts may not be the best person to rebut a genius like Hitchens, seeing as how only got his PhD in New Testament from this podunk little university called Harvard, but he still does an admirable job.

Note: the links below are only a portion of Roberts' blog entries on this subject, and they come in somewhere in the middle. Therefore, what I'm calling Part 1 is actually Part 3 of his posts on GING.

Here's part 1 of his rebuttal of Hitchens
Here's part 2
Here's part 3
Here's part 4
Here's part 5

GING Old Testament

Chapter 7: "The Nightmare of the "Old" Testament."



Much like he does with his examples of apparently "flawed" design, Hitchens presumes to know how God really would have inspired the Bible if he in fact truly existed. It's interesting that an atheist as passionate as Hitchens seems to know so much about how a God should do things. I'm referring to his indictment of the ten commandments, which are too authoritarian, patronizing and misogynistic for his tastes.

I don't want to give the impression that I have never struggled with certain old testament passages-- in particular instances like the destruction of Jericho in which every single person, "man and woman, young and old," was killed per God's command. But I stop short of expressing how I could have done things better. Hitchens trots into the realm of fallacy by claiming how he could do things better than one who does not exist.

Hitchens also makes much of whether Moses was the exclusive author of Genesis and the books in which Moses appears. I don't think I've ever met one scholar who was willing to die on the Hill of Moses' exclusive authorship (in fact, many lean away from that idea). The point is not whether Moses wrote all, or any, of the first five books of the Bible. The point is that God accomplished what he set out to accomplish when he inspired the author or authors of the first five books of the Bible. God effectively communicated to Balaam through the latter's donkey; I'm quite confident He could give us the pentateuch the way He wanted it written via one, twenty, or twenty million different "authors."

Lastly, Hitchens flatly claims that the 400 years of Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, and final settlement in Canaan never happened. He trots out an expert or two with impressive sounding credentials who claim that there is no archeological evidence whatsoever for the Biblical account of the 440(ish) years under scrutiny. (Interestingly enough, Hitchens does seem to lend credence to the notion of a mass-extinction flood event.) My response is: I haven't bothered to look into the evidence. But beyond the obvious fact that it would not follow, in the event that there was there no evidence, that the events themselves did not occur: Hitchens is revealed here by Pastor Mark Roberts to be either woefully misinformed at best, or at worst a blatant liar, on at least 15 significant points concerning the New Testatment. Why should I believe a word this man Hitchens has to say regarding the Old Testament?