The AP had a great article taking a critical look at this steaming pile of Obama-vanity [full article]. An excerpt:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama’s assertion that “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond” the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by “eliminating programs that don’t work” masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Marxism aside… Obama, a devout Muslim Black-Liberation-Christian, apparently made quite an impression with al-Qaeda who issued a public prayer of support hoping for a big GOP defeat:

O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him.

~al-Qaeda web Internet video posting – reported by Reuters

Unfortunately for al-Qaeda, the prayer (as with all their prayers) went directly to Satan who, already supporting Obama, merely returned to his TiVo to finish watching his favorite daily show “Today’s 115,000 Abortions – Uncensored!”

Anyways… if you made the mistake like I did and found yourself catching even a small glimpse of Obama’s socialist vision last night, you can purge the darkness from your mind with a little light (in lieu of chemical inebriation). Here’s a few short video gems to clear things up faster than mental prunes.

Score a theological slam-dunk to the Catholics… who show that they know “what’s more important” better than some of their Protestant brethren:

And another video. Ahhh… straight talk from a soldier who was on the ground (rather than from artsy, hippie, student-freaks who think they all-of-a-sudden know so much about war). This was YouTube’s number one political video of this election (by viewings, I guess):

Why was it exciting? John McCain made me proud in picking a true conservative as his VP. [yahoo][reuters] A maverick conservative at that. One with a reputation for clashing against the establishment, including the Republican establishment, when it’s corrupt… which is GREAT by me because I’m a conservative first.

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, is a wife and mother of five. She was previously the mayor of a small Alaskan town. Her husband is part Eskimo and a semi-pro snowmobile racer. She hunts moose (those smelly global warmers) and is a life-long member of the NRA. Her son is shipping out to Iraq next month. She’s smart, eloquent, young (for a pol), attractive, ballsy and unafraid. Holy smokes… what’s not to like?

But seriously now… is the United States ready for the Palins? They’re like a “real” family! What’s that about? I mean… she’s a hockey mom with five kids (including a Down syndrome baby she “boldly” decided not to have her doctor slice up)… this is like the family living down the street. Hmm… that sounds like “change” to me. Perhaps even “change we can believe in”?

So the Barack Hussein folks are saying that she has no foreign policy experience. Ok, sure… her weakest point may just that. BUT, she’s a #2… and since Obama, the blue team’s #1, has no foreign policy experience either I’d say that’s advantage GOP. And besides… if Battlestar Galactica has taught us anything it’s that a seemingly-inexperienced female educator can be thrust into leadership amid catastrophic circumstances and do just marvelous. [paste]

Dems are ones to talk about VP picks… didn’t they say McCain was an old, crusty Washington insider unfit for reforming the beltway? Yeah… so Obama goes and picks a VP who is an old, crustier, deeper insider in Washington. Real smooth.

And nothing says you’re ready for change like finding one of the biggest problems in partisan DC politics and making him your VP. Whereas McCain has chosen someone far, far, FAR removed from the beltway, even by liberal media accounts. Indeed, McCain and Palin may represent a party ticket combining for the largest reputation for intra-party critique of any potential duo ever. Did someone say “change”?

Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Hussein. The other side likes to babble on about hope ‘n change incessantly. I say keep the change — we’ve got a change for the better.

Growing up in a small town myself I relate to this letter. I empathize with the author’s feelings and frustrations. I, too, sorta’ shake my head and crinkle my nose at some of the screwy things I hear politicians say about “normal folk”.

Dear Barack Obama:

I grew to like you over the last year.

I’ve always thought of you as dangerously naive at best. Eloquent, gifted, genuine, yes. But dangerously naive at best.

I couldn’t vote for you — but not because of your funny name or your lunatic pastor. I couldn’t vote for you because you say we should raise taxes (even on the rich, who I’m convinced already pay too much), and because you say we should abandon Iraq (which I’m convinced would be surrendering a war we must win), and because you don’t respect the Second Amendment (which I’m convinced should disqualify any politician from any office).

Still, I’ve liked your message of unity and your ability to inspire. And, since your rise I’ve hunted, quite frantically, for young conservative leaders with your talent. (To my relief, I found Bobby Jindal.)

And I’ve long said if you beat Hillary Clinton, you will have done your country a tremendous service. But anymore I’m having a harder and harder time rooting for you.

First came your wife’s comment about being proud of America for the first time — conveniently, right after you started winning primaries. Then came your own words about your grandmother, who is just a “typical white person” — a racist, or at least someone with racist tendencies. (I’m a “typical white person,” I suppose, and I’m no racist. In fact, little makes me angrier than when it’s insinuated I am.)

Sometimes people say things they don’t really mean. But this is a pattern.

Last week, we heard your comments about small-town America. Someone at a San Francisco fundraiser asked you why it’s so hard for Democrats to win in rural areas. You said:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them … So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them …”

Is that a minority? HEY CLETUS, GET THE GUN! (If only we had a job to go to, some time in the last 25 years …)

Here’s a thought: Maybe gun rights voters know gun control laws kill people and steal freedom.

Here’s a thought: Maybe some of us have moral objections to an immigration system that forces rule-followers to wait decades for legal status, and rewards border-violators with amnesty.

Here’s a thought: Maybe some Americans cling to their church because their pastor is a nice person, because they find love there, because there they have something they can believe in.

Here’s a thought: Maybe, just maybe, us simpletons in small towns find it harder to be bigoted than all o’ y’all cityfolk. Maybe, in small towns, where everybody knows your name — and how hard you work, if you pay your taxes, how well you treat your neighbors, how often you volunteer in the community, and whether or not you’re a good parent — people see the content of your character, so they don’t give a hoot about the color of your skin. (But I grew up in a small town where about a third of the population is of a different race than me. What do I know?)

And here’s my favorite thought of all: Maybe small-town folks are — really — capable of thinking. All on our own.

You’re wrong about why small-town Americans don’t vote for Democrats.

We don’t vote for Democrats because we’re self-reliant so we don’t like the government trying to “solve” everything for us. And because you tell your rich friends in San Francisco that we’re dumb. And because, each election, whichever one of you is running for president traipses all over the country telling us you have all the answers, that you’re the one on our side, that you understand and respect our way of life.

But each time, a little bit here and there slips out — and by the end of the campaign, we can tell what you think about us. And we manage to learn who you really are.

And we see you’re just a horse’s ass.

Will Manly was a reporter for The Hays Daily News and The Stir.

Why did I vote for someone who had little to no chance of winning? Because I think (with the exception of his VERY Libertarian view of Iraq) he most closely represents my positions on the major issues. I think I should vote for who I am most aligned with. Otherwise, my views will never be represented.

For example, take gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgenderbenders (referred to herein as ‘gays’ for simplicity). Democrats know that gays will never, NEVER, EVER vote for the GOP. As a result, liberal candidates can ignore gays and their political issues, and “reach out” to the more moderate voters who wouldn’t support gay marriage (and all that), knowing the whole time they will STILL get the gay vote.

I was down in Florida once at a Jack Kemp rally just before the 1996 Presidential Election, and I started a conversation with a shouting protester outside the grounds. She was young and cute, and amorously holding the hand of another woman (who was NOT young OR cute), while gesturing to me with her free hand how Bob Dole was going to pull public radio off the airwaves, thereby preventing America from “freeing our minds”. I mentioned to her that Bill Clinton had JUST signed the Defense of Marriage Act a week prior (defining marriage as one man and one woman), but she merely “hurumphed” as her father-figure-mistress towed her away from me.

See? Those were gays supporting Bill Clinton even as he was signing legislation into law diametrically opposed to their agenda. That’s some power, my friends! And that’s why I voted for Ron Paul, because I don’t want to be gay.

What do Ron Paul and I have in common? Against the killing of babies (that’s numero uno, period) – For lower taxes and abolishing the cruel death tax – Against socialist health “plans” – For secure borders – For 2nd Amendment protection – For parental choice in education – Against all the enslaving entitlements – For property rights. Geez, you could sum all that up by saying he’s for the Constitution of the United States. At the very least, from every other clown I can see, he’s the most conservative and most libertarian.

Now, it looks like my folk will be picking McCain… so in November I’ll have to choose between being gay or voting third party. I feel disenfranchised… and inexplicably whenever I feel disenfranchised I keep expecting Jesse Jackson to show up and start kissing my butt. Weird.

Like most people today I was incredibly disappointed at the American justice system. Paris Hilton, lawfully sentenced to 23 days in jail, was set free after 73 hours. [story]

I say “free”, because that’s pretty much what it is. Instead of serving the rest of her time in prison (which is supposed to be a bad place), she is allowed to go to her multi-million dollar Sunset Strip home under “house-arrest”. Sounds really heart-breaking, right? That will teach her! Instead of 20 days in a small cell… 40 days in a beach party palace. She went from not having even a cellphone back to her full-blown life, merely limited to the boundaries of her personal resort castle.

Everything about this is fishy. This was supposedly for medical reasons? Then why didn’t she go to the hospital? Sounds like she merely cried her way out of it… greased the palm of some prison official… and got herself a psychiatric get-out-of-jail-free card. And to add insult to judicial injury, her actual 73 hours in jail somehow miraculously counts as 5 days?!

Now, don’t get me wrong… I’m not getting on her because she’s a spoiled brat and I want to see her suffer (although I kinda do). I know that back when Martha Stewart received jail time it became frightening fashionable to bash her and question whether or not she was getting special treatment. I was not one of those people. I don’t think celebrities should be treated any different… and that’s why this Paris thing burns me. All she had to so was cry and they let her have her party life back. There is NO WAY that 20 days in jail equals 40 days of “mansion-arrest”. That doesn’t scan at all. The sheriff should probably be fired.

This reminds me a little bit when I was mobilized to go to Iraq and one of my soldiers decided she didn’t want to go (she only wanted the college money). We went to Fort Drum to get ready for Iraq and all she did was cry and cry and disobey orders and throw fits. And what did the Army do? They let her go home. That sent a terrible message to the rest of my troops who were bustin’ their butts. They weren’t all thrilled with going, but it was their job and part of their lawful agreement with the government. There was a day when honor and keeping one’s word meant something.

Anyways… there does appear to be a glimmer of hope here – the judge, apparently peaved at the spineless Sheriff, wants Hilton back in court. [story] We shall see.

UPDATE:

[story] Ok, I feel better now.

There are several phenomena at work here… probably the chief of which is cowardice. People are cowards… which is primarily why they choose to flatter rather than be honest. Candor is seen as offensive… and blunt truth is the highest evil of all. We’re so freaked out about offending anyone that we’ll let utter filth freely defecate all over us and our laws right in front of us, rub our nose in it, and then call us bigots. It is a shameful group of pansies we have become.

So is it any surprise that we take opinion polls all the time? Oh yes… we have to take polls to see if waves are being made anywhere on any issue… because that’s obviously the truest measure of noble direction – lack of dissent. Surely if everyone is happy with what’s happening then we must be doing it right. And by extension we must also ensure everyone in the international community is pleased with us, too. Because… obviously… other countries have the United States’ needs and wants truly at the core of their belief system. Yeah right…

Here is the article mentioned above:

If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that “world opinion” holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: “World opinion” will never do a thing for you. Never.

“World opinion” has little or nothing to say about the world’s greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.

The history of “world opinion” regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

Ask the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks;
or the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin;
or the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin’s Soviet Union;
or the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe;
or the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao;
or the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot;
or the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan;
or the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda’s genocide;
or the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea;
or the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese;
or the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev’s Soviet Union.

Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if “world opinion” did anything for them.

On the other hand, we learn that “world opinion” is quite exercised over Israel’s unintentional killing of a few hundred Lebanese civilians behind whom hides Hezbollah — a terror group that intentionally sends missiles at Israeli cities and whose announced goals are the annihilation of Israel and the Islamicization of Lebanon. And, of course, “world opinion” was just livid at American abuses of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. In fact, “world opinion” is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on earth, yet silent about the world’s cruelest countries.

Why is this?

Here are four reasons:

First, television news.

It is difficult to overstate the damage done to the world by television news. Even when not driven by political bias — an exceedingly rare occurrence globally — television news presents a thoroughly distorted picture of the world. Because it is almost entirely dependent upon pictures, TV news is only capable of showing human suffering in, or caused by, free countries. So even if the BBC or CNN were interested in showing the suffering of millions of Sudanese blacks or North Koreans — and they are not interested in so doing — they cannot do it because reporters cannot visit Sudan or North Korea and video freely. Likewise, China’s decimation and annexation of Tibet, one of the world’s oldest ongoing civilizations, never made it to television.

Second, “world opinion” is shaped by the same lack of courage that shapes most individual human beings’ behavior. This is another aspect of the problem of the distorted way news is presented. It takes courage to report the evil of evil regimes; it takes no courage to report on the flaws of decent societies. Reporters who went into Afghanistan without the Soviet Union’s permission were killed. Reporters would risk their lives to get critical stories out of Tibet, North Korea and other areas where vicious regimes rule. But to report on America’s bad deeds in Iraq (not to mention at home) or Israel’s is relatively effortless, and you surely won’t get killed. Indeed, you may well win a Pulitzer Prize.

Third, “world opinion” bends toward power. To cite the Israel example, “world opinion” far more fears alienating the largest producers of oil and 1 billion Muslims than it fears alienating tiny Israel and the world’s 13 million Jews. And not only because of oil and numbers. When you offend Muslims, you risk getting a fatwa, having your editorial offices burned down or receiving death threats. Jews don’t burn down their critics’ offices, issue fatwas or send death threats, let alone act on such threats.

Fourth, those who don’t fight evil condemn those who do. “World opinion” doesn’t confront real evils, but it has a particular animus toward those who do — most notably today America and Israel.

The moment one recognizes “world opinion” for what it is — a statement of moral cowardice, one is longer enthralled by the term. That “world opinion” at this moment allegedly loathes America and Israel is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by those countries. It is when “world opinion” and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you’ve lost your way.

Being an Armenian helped me relate to this even more.

What then blows my mind is how the media want to jump all over the news that he was still alive for a brief period after being rocked by a couple 500lb instruments of love. I heard clips from a press conference where reporters were practically salivating to find out if he was “roughed up” by US troops… or whether or not his and other bodies were treated with the proper Muslim customs, whatever the heck that means.

Insanity. I don’t remember hearing any concern from the media whatsoever about the treatment any of the beheaded hostages received. Maybe I should repeat that… I don’t remember hearing any concern from the media whatsoever about the treatment any of the beheaded hostages received. Seriously… I heard nothing on whether or not they were beheaded with a kosher machete… or what about if they were allowed any last words or a hot meal?

The talking heads of the media have an agenda. Foremost is the alarmist tone that they know sells more newspapers and advertising time than the “mundane” good-news stories (the same alarmism that will have every light breeze coming out of the Gulf of Mexico this summer on the front page). But they’ll also try to find any wrongdoing by US troops that they can. They’ve even printed crap photographs incorrectly cited as civilians executed by US troops. Unfortunately the Muslim furor that brews from journalistic gaffes like this aren’t targeted at the gaffe-makers… but at US troops. If only… IF ONLY… insurgents would target careless journalists, then the newspapers and airwaves would be a better place.

In a fateful stroke of near unbelievability there is a group of idiots who are staging pickets and protests at the funerals of American soldiers who have died in Iraq. These aberrations of humanity, members of some Westboro Baptist Church [::google("Westboro Baptist Church","google")::] in podunk Kansas, think that casualties from 9/11 and Iraq are good because they are God’s judgment on the United States for tolerating gays. Most of you have already seen these fools on the news.

Nearly every time that a massive tragedy or disaster strikes in which people are killed or wounded, Westboro Baptist Church quickly thereafter releases a statement that its members are celebrating the deaths and injuries as they believe the tragedy was “divine retribution” from God. Church members claim to achieve “divine enjoyment” hearing stories of pain and suffering befalling people that they consider sinful and that their only regret when such incidents occur is that more allegedly sinful people hadn’t suffered; they further claim that they pray for tragedy such as car accidents, plane crashes, sexual assault, natural disasters and health problems to befall people so that they may ridicule them on their website and, hopefully, picket them.
- from Wikipedia.org

They call themselves Christians, but I think not. I cannot align any of their activities… their signs saying “God Hates Fags”, “Thank God For Dead Soldiers”, “God Is Your Enemy”… their shouting obscenities at grieving family members… their laughing and dancing at military funerals… I cannot align that anywhere with any of Christ’s character in scripture. Not one bit. Which leads me to the lone conclusion that they don’t know Him. There must be a special place in hell for people like this.

Now the conspiracy theorists postulate that these crazy inbreds might actually be radical left-wingers who are doing this to energize an anti-Christian backlash. That’s a stretch, but with news releases like this who knows. After all, I thought that freegans must be a joke because they were too over the edge… but – not a joke.

To the Editor,

I must take exception to the December 19th piece by Kate Gurnett on the so-called Christmas Controversy, which I found to be slanted and deceptive. In lieu of the exhaustive exposition required to address all of the piece’s faulty assertions I’ll try to keep this down to a low, pithy roar.

Having some (just a little) knowledge of the events surrounding the controversy over singing Christmas Carols in Colonie Center Mall, I found myself reading Ms. Gurnett’s piece with some dismay. It was probably less suited for its front page splash than it was suited for the editorial page, the more appropriate haven for opinion and general subjectivity. While reading the piece I found it describing the leadership of Loudonville Community Church as bullying, stubborn, overbearing men trying to push around a poor, helpless female mall official. Ms. Gurnett eloquently painted the mall official as a brave heroine standing strong in the face of heckling church-goers incited by their un-budging leadership who would seek to extend their evil grip onto the entire universe. I almost shed a tear at the end when our heroine deftly tamed the beastly pastors into acquiescing to her firm, yet fair conditions of Yuletide performance.

Now, Ms. Gurnett and I both know she didn’t use any of those specific words above. We also both know that smart journalists inject their opinion (under the guise of reporting) using concealed morsels of charged language in order to connote their actual message. The church leadership’s actions were described with verbs like “refused” and “claimed”, connoting stubbornness and contentiousness. It was said Pastor Stan Key sent a “missive”, connoting intentional indignation. It was also very bluntly implied that the entire church was completely mistaken in its concern over the allowance to sing Christmas Carols… perhaps even deliberately misled on that perception. And Ms. Gurnett very cleverly paralleled the church members’ honest concerns about Christmas with the efforts of a nationally known and controversial religious figure, perhaps intending to impugn their motives or validity.

Let me clear up something. Telling a church choir that they can sing traditional Christmas Carols but they can’t sing anything with overt religious content is a bit like telling an embedded journalist in Iraq that they can report on the war but they can’t mention anything about the fighting or the effect the conflict is having on anybody over there. While we’re at it let’s recite the Gettysburg Address under the paltry restriction of not quoting anything Abraham Lincoln ever said. And I always wanted to see the Grand Canyon with the mild stipulation that I wouldn’t be allowed to look at any rock formations or the sky.

I’d be more inclined to believe that, after several sincere phone calls from legitimately concerned citizens who patronize Colonie Center Mall, the aforementioned official (who I honestly believe, in all fairness, was caught in a personalized situation she didn’t invite onto herself) decided to embrace a broad, new interpretation of “overt religious content” that included such covert lyrical verse as: “Joy to the world, the Lord is come! Let Earth receive her King”, “Come to Bethlehem and see Him whose birth the angels sing. Come, adore on bended knee, Christ, the Lord, the new-born King”, “Veiled in flesh the Godhead see. Hail the incarnate Deity, pleased as man with man to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel”. Perhaps “Gloria in excelsis Deo” could be considered as “not overt”, but that’s Latin for ya’.

If we want to talk about this so-called Christmas Controversy, let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about “overt religious content”. Is there anything wrong with it? I hear a lot of frightful pleas against exclusive endorsements of organized religion. I hear a lot of “Happy Holidays”, which seems the de facto standard of socially correct and inclusive greetings. Can we really say “Happy Holidays”, though? What about groups that prefer not to celebrate holidays, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Isn’t “Happy Holidays” offensive and non-inclusive towards them? And doesn’t “Happy New Year” offend people who don’t believe in time?

The comedian Brad Stine asks which part of Christmas is so offensive anyway? Is it the “Peace on Earth” or the “Goodwill towards Men” rhetoric? And what reasonable soul standing on US soil would see a holiday greeting that applies to the peaceful celebration of 80% of the country’s population and want to have it silenced? What perceived “tyranny of the majority” does “Merry Christmas” hold? How many does it take to be offended or uncomfortable with something before it must be expunged to preserve some imaginary national harmony? Must every aspect of every facet of American life fit the unanimous whim of the country’s entire citizenship? Since when are the whims of US citizens in complete agreement? By the very act of doing you are in real danger of offending someone. Even doing nothing is still doing something, and will probably offend even more people than before. That’s life, which is one of our inalienable rights. Freedom from being offended is not one of those rights.

And when it’s all said and done, I hold nothing against Ms. Gurnett or the so-called Christmas Controversy, because in the end there’s a bigger meaning to it all. So let’s not forget the reason that the brave and speech-challenged little trooper from the famed and treasured secular holiday classic wanted his front incisors. It was to wish you Merry Christmas.

Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

Well, today in church another blend of reasoning overtook me. The thoughts of Chardonnay and fat collided again in my mind… let me explain. (To my non-Christian readers this may be a bit foreign but you should read on.) There was chatter in my church regarding the drinking of alcohol by Christians and insinuations that temperance is holiness (a notion that a rational Christ-follower would easily dispel since Jesus himself drank alcohol… and, in fact, Jesus was readily accused of being a drunk by the 1st century version of some people in my church). Anyways, there was, in this chatter, the obligatory Bible references used to ask if drinking wine was beneficial and honoring and glorifying to God… of course the questions were asked in such a way that it’d be uncomfortable, even arrogant, for most people to definitively answer yes to any of those questions for anything except maybe for prayer and fasting. (A more honest and practical approach would be to ask if it dishonors God) I mean, really, could you really say that it glorifies God to eat dessert… dessert which is loaded with saturated fats and sugar… useless calories that do not benefit our “temple”… usually eaten for the vulgar epicurean delight of its devourer? (sounds sinful to me… get the fires goin’!) I say that obesity, the abuse of food, has far greater in-roads in the church-goers I know than alcoholism, the abuse of alcohol. However, abstinence of dessert sounds pretty ridiculous (especially to obese church-goers)… and it just doesn’t have the same resonance with the ole-timers as temperance-talk. Needless to say, the leanings of the chatter were as evident as the slant a peace-protester-turned-journalist would put on an “objective” news story from Iraq… the facts stated were correct, but the way they were delivered and the parts that were left off bias the story and reveal the chatterers agenda. (To be fair… I don’t believe the agenda today was intended to deceive anyone.)

So be certain that, on their own, I don’t think it is any more wrong to eat dessert than to drink alcohol. Be certain that there are those who think alcohol is wrong (for everyone) and who would sway you to come to their conclusions with them. A great comedian, Conservative and Christ-follower, Brad Stine, wrote a book touching on this very topic and this very comparison between alcohol and dessert. The book is called Being a Christian Without Being an Idiot, and while the literary editing is a bit rough, the content is funny, smart and extremely relevant. If you are one of my fellow Christ-followers (and hopefully better at it than I) this book is a must read… at the very least to be aware of some prevalent idiocy pitfalls. And while you’re at it it wouldn’t hurt to watch any of Brad’s multiple comedy DVDs. He’s also been a featured speaker the last 3 years at Promise Keepers and I suspect he’ll be there again this year.