Karl Rove

Karl Rove

Karl Rove

Karl Rove

The blood pressure pills are in the cabinet above the sink.

Hidden message:  Lighten up.  Go to a movie.  You'll live longer and we can debate into our 90's.

sharp

All my life I've heard that arrogance and insecurity go hand in hand. It's hard to see it, though, because arrogance leads to behavior that looks quite self-confident.

Well, I'm no pyschoanalyst, but I have a petri dish of one life full of experiences and I've learned this.  I can recognize horrible flaws in myself and be quite hard and honest with myself.  But then I can turn around and be highly critical of other people.

This is particularly bad because my belief set, being a Christian, doesn't lend itself to criticism of others but to self-discipline, compassion and encouragement.  So why, as notacynic has correctly pointed out, am I sometimes arrogant?  That's a great question.  Here are two possible answers (I hope you don't mind me having this conversation with myself).

First, the weaknesses I have are part of being only part-way on my journey.  I've got certain strenghts and certain weaknesses and overcoming my flaws doesn't happen overnight - or apparently over 45 years.  That's a little depressing.

Second, the weaknesses I have may be purposeful on God's part to keep me humble.  When notacynic drops by to say that I was insulting and arrogant, I can see that he's right.  And it's as clearly hypocritical as anything I could be.  In fact, it would be better if I said nothing at all than to be proven a hypocrite.  So I feel that remorse (blessed are those who mourn...) for what I recognize as pathetic behaviors.  I'm not saying God makes me a hypocrite, just that he designed me as a being that requires forgiveness so that I can give forgiveness.  If I were perfect, I'd really be a jerk (I'll pause and let you add your own thoughts here).

But there is one other thought.  I'm not sure this isn't completely wrong.  Let me start with that.  But I wonder if part of the Christian walk isn't stumbling and failing.  And that because the world needs to believe in Christ because of Christ and not because of me.  If people believed because of me, they might follow me.  But no one who knows me would follow me.  And yet, when they see the contriteness and the striving for the truth and for right behavior (the law is summed up in these words, do to others as you would have them do to you) then maybe they can understand that all Christians are foolish, weak sinners who believe in a righteous God and are strugglng to empty themselves of self and fill themselves with His Spirit of righteousness.  And so, anyone who sees can easily recognize their own worthiness to attain the same thing.  It's not "top of the mountain" completeness that I'll ever attain, it's continual struggling to put off bad thoughts, desires, behaviors and the stuggle to let God live in me - demonstrated by love ("they will know we are Christians by our love", "so that your good works may be seen that men may glorify God").

So is my public weakness a part of my testimony of God's righteousness?  Maybe as long as I struggle to do what's right and to be more like Him.

Hmmm.

sharp

Democrats on the board. Help me understand something. Wasn't your party going to impeach the President over warrant-less wiretaps.

So why did you just reauthorize them?  And expand them?

I can't help but refer back to my own comments about how the Democrats would change their minds about the Patriot Act (Harry Reid: "We killed the Patriot Act") when it was actually going to be their responsibility to provide the tools to fight terror.

And they couldn't muster the votes to end funding for the Iraq war, though that's what they promised in the mid-term elections.

And now they've expanded the program they said was an impeachable offense on the part of the President.

Boy, the left must be furious over electing Republicans they thought were Democrats.

sharp

I don't often watch MSNBC. Not because of the liberal mocking nature of shows like Olberman's insult-fest, but rather because of the quality of the programming. I occasionally watch CNN as they have the best international coverage and a pretty slick operation. I watch Fox, except when they have the "guy from the left" vs. the "girl from the right" and both are reading from their extreme cue cards and spewing the party line nonsense.

But I like MSNBC's website.  It has long been one of the best in terms of both visual layout and content.  And so I found myself there and, foolishly, clicking on a link to a video direct from MSNBC News.  And I was there long enough to hear a moderator (mockingly) ask if Governor Richardson's wholly ridiculous (in their unchallenged opinion) comment about gay orientation was the most "cringetastic" moment of the night.

Cringetastic? 

This is what happens when you try to appeal to a young audience.  You get stupid. 

I probably won't be around to hear what they call Mitt Romney.  But I can't help but think about it.  Will he be "hunkalicious"?  Or maybe the "Mormonator". 

Lol. What happened to the grown-ups? 

sharp

...then Al Qaeda is dead in Iraq". (From Michael Yon's dispatch) The quote from a major Shiite leader who was part of food, water and electricity (and with them jobs) flowing back into a former Al Qaeda stronghold. Anbar province and now Baqubah, along with much of Baghdad and many, many small towns and villages are seeing Al Qaeda killed, captured and fleeing (sometimes dressed as women to avoid capture - unsuccessfully).

This is an awful quandary for Democrats. Can they celebrate victories in a war they've tried hard to leave? Can they honestly hope for American and Iraqi victory in this battle?

This could be one of those watershed moments in American political history. A moment that could be pointed to for decades to come when discussing the disintegration of the Democratic party.

Or it could just be a temporary improvement. If so, Democrats will rule this country for some time. Time will tell. But both sides have laid their entire futures on this war.

Both can't win.

sharp