Gerry Charlotte Phelps

Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs - and Pastors

                    (Image from bbc.co.uk)

Mitch Lewis is a military chaplain who writes a marvelous blog.  One of his finest posts, I think, is "Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs," here.  It is a compelling read. 

Mitch quotes from Greyhawk in  “Wolves among us,” at MudvilleGazette, who comments on Dave Grossman’s essay, “On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs.”  Grossman, a professor at the U.S. Military Academy, has a simple metaphor: 

There are sheep, wolves and sheepdogs in this world. The wolves prey on the sheep; the sheepdogs protect them. Both wolves and sheepdogs have fangs, but they use them for quite different purposes.

He quotes an old veteran:

“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”

    (Image from imagecache2.allposters.com)

Mitch continues Grossman's quote:

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

Greyhawk quotes this part of Grossman:

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

Mitch added this comment to his post:

For me, “sheep” is not a pejorative term. I don’t say it with a sneer, as does Nietzsche. The only reason that you NEED sheepdogs is to protect the sheep. The sheepdog’s battle with the wolf is not simply a contest of wills between combatants; its purpose is found in the flock it protects.

We sheepdogs should be under no illusion that we bring anything other than temporary, localized, imperfect relief from the threats of this world. Still, it would hardly be an act of love to stand by and watch the flock be devoured by wolves. We do what we can.

But what struck me was the role of pastors in protecting the sheep. 

    (Image from bbc.co.uk)

In my comment on Mitch's post I wrote this:

"What I’m also thinking about is the role of shepherds. And the Christian possibility of transforming wolves into sheep or sheepdogs. It does happen, sometimes. Though through all my years in prison, I never saw it happen except through Christ.  Also, of how sheep can get transformed into shepherds or sheepdogs.

"Funny - somehow over the years as a pastor, I stopped thinking of myself as the shepherd of the flock. Instead, I thought of myself as the shepherd’s sheepdog.

"Jesus is The Shepherd. My job as pastor/sheepdog was to guide the flock to the right places, see that they were tended, fed and watered, and to protect them from predators. And from The Predator.

"I even kept a print on my wall of a modern shepherd with a cowboy hat on, with a sheepdog on his lap, as he pulled burrs out of the dog’s coat. I saw myaslf as that dusty, tired, foot-sore sheepdog, getting welcome relief from those burrs.

"Christian sheepdogs do more for the sheep than protecting them from predators. But they do that too, if they do their jobs.

"God bless you, Mitch and all like you. And God bless all sheepdogs, whether pastors or soldiers."

You Gotta See This. Impossible!

_

Impossible! - 3 minutes

_

From Milk and Cookies, here

_

This married pair are magicians David and Dania.

Apparently they have become the most popular act during NBA half-time shows. 

They also appeared on America's "Got Talent"

_

(Thanks and Hat Tip to Fred and Gene Hannah)

So This Bird Walks Into A Store...

A seagull has turned shoplifter by wandering into a shop and helping itself to crisps, here and here. 

The bird walks into the RS McColl newsagents in Aberdeen when the door is open and makes off with cheese Doritos.

The seagull, nicknamed Sam, has now become so popular that locals have started paying for his crisps.

Shop assistant Sriaram Nagarajan said: "Everyone is amazed by the seagull. For some reason he only takes that one particular kind of crisps."

The bird first swooped in Aberdeen's Castlegate earlier this month and made off with the 55p crisps, and is now a regular.

Once outside, the crisps are ripped open and the seagull is joined by other birds.

'Fine art'

Mr Nagarajan said: "He's got it down to a fine art. He waits until there are no customers around and I'm standing behind the till, then he raids the place.

"At first I didn't believe a seagull was capable of stealing crisps. But I saw it with my own eyes and I was surprised. He's very good at it.

The seagull takes the crisps outside and eats them

"He's becoming a bit of a celebrity. Seagulls are usually not that popular but Sam is a star because he's so funny."

A spokesman for RSPB Scotland said: "I've never heard of anything like this before.

"Perhaps it tried some crisps in a shiny packet in the street, and was just opportunistic one day at the shop when it saw what was inside.

"As everyone knows, gulls can be very quick and fearless, and clearly this one is no exception."

He added: "We'd discourage people from feeding gulls though, as gulls in towns generate lots of complaints every year, and the availability of food is the only reason they live in urban settings."

(Thanks and a big Hat Tip to Fred and Gene Hannah)

New Illegal Immigration Problem

                            (Image from unilonleader.com)

This from Ben Blankenship, and also here.  It is from the Manitoba Herald, Canada (described as being a "very underground paper.")

The flood of American liberals sneaking acorss the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

Tha actions of President Bush are prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.  The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.  "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken.

When I said I didn't have any, he left.  Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them.  So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields.  "Not real effective," he said.  "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said.  "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water.  They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives.  Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishng re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.

In recent days, liberals have turned to sometines-ingenious ways of crossing the border.  Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs.  After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s.

"If thay can't identify the accordian player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandan movies.

"I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said.  "How many art-history majors does one country need?"

Most U.S. Poor Don't Stay Poor

          (Image from onthefencefilms.com)

Inequality of incomes is a hot political  issue in the U.S.  Many politicians claim such inequality is growing.  Many economists say it is not.  But is it important?  Is inequality of incomes even unfair?  If it is growing, does that mean unfairness is growing?  I have argued here that so long as incomes are rising all across the economy, it does not matter if some are rising faster than others.  That is, even if someone has more than some others, those others have more too.  So everyone together is better off.

But back to inequality of incomes: is it really a matter for concern so long as most people do not stay down at the bottom for long?

                                 Click here to see entire graph 

                                    (Image from heritage.org)

The fact is that over the 25 year period in the graph above, almost 60% of the people in the poorest fifth of the population moved up.  For that matter, over 50% of the people in the richest fifth moved down!  In fact, most people in every fifth were moving up or down, not staying the same.  There was great mobility across the entire economy. 

So much movement between income groups is dramatic proof  that the U.S. is indeed a land of great opportunity.  No matter where you start financially, It is very possible to move up.  A majority of the poor actually do.

For some other sources, see here, here, here and here 

Military Chaplain Asked to Pray Against Iraq War

     (Jonathan Fisher documents his First Tour in Iraq. The accompaniment is a very nice contemporary acoustic version of “For all the Saints” by Indelible Grace.  From Military Chaplain Mitch Lewis' blog here )

Military Chaplain Mitch Lewis - a United Methodist Chaplain - has been getting mass emails from a Christian Leader asking that people pray that the U.S. will abandon Iraq.  How does a military chaplain feel about praying against what his troops are doing?  He responds here :

Lewis notes that church-father Origen said that Christians:

...did pray for the king and his armies to have success when they were fighting for a righteous cause, even to the point of praying for the "destruction" of the forces of evil.

He comments that:

If it's permissible to pray against the forces attenpting to restrain evil doers - those who bomb market places, schools and places of worship - those who kidnap and murder the innocent - those who terrorize their communities and the world - why is it shocking to pray for the success of those who are fighting for the rule of law and a measure of freedom?

He also quotes from Training Letter 5 for Chaplains:

Pray for the defeat of our wicked enemy whose banner is injustice and whose good is oppression.  Pray for victory.  Pray for our Army, and Pray for Peace.

Finally he asks:

The fact that we are praying for success in an enterprise that costs lives shouldn't stop us from praying for its success.  As I wrote in Like David, "How can I participate in something that I cannot ask God to bless?"

What do you think?  Does that make sense to you?

But read his whole post.  And think about visiting his excellent blog on a regular basis.

      

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon

       (Image from army.mil/images)

This will stir you.  It will also make you think what you might be able to do. (Courtesy of Fred and Gene Hannah)

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY McClatchy Newspapers, here. 

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman , who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Web site.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

"This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew. Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area. The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.

"10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.

"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.

"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. `My hands hurt.' Christ. Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

"They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

"These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years." Did you know that? The media hasn't told the story.

How can we do something like this in our communities?  Many of us can think of something, and bring it about.

Iran Behind Attacks on U.S. In Iraq Since 2002

                         (Image from mensa-barbie.blogspot.com)

At the Belmont Club, here, Wretchard writes in "The Other War In Iraq:"

I can't recommend Kimberly Kagan's short history of the Iranian war effort against the U.S. in Iraq, at the Weekly Standard, strongly enough.  There are two points she repeatedly makes: first, the Iranians began deployments to Iraq in anticipation of OIF in December, 2002.  Second, she describes the tactical alliances between Iran and Sunni/Al Queda fronts in considerable detail.

He is right.  You should read her report.  It describes how, even before U.S. troops arrived in Iraq, Iran was preparing with the potential Sunni resistance, the potential Shi'ite militias and Al Queda to fight the U.S. in Iraq.  Training was - and is - provided for these three, both in Iran and in Iraq, by Hezbollah and by Iranian Qods trainers.  Armaments were - and are still - provided, including the new explosives that have replaced the old IEDs and which can pierce through the armor of U.S. Humvees and troop carriers.

After mid-level, back channel talks began between Iran and the U.S., the Iranians denied all of this to the face of U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  This gives a disturbing picture of how fruitless "negotiating" with Iran can be. 

George Friedman at Stratfor also wrote about this in "Move and Countermove: Ahmadinejad and Bush Duel" on 8/29/07.  He notes that Bush has said that for the U.S. to leave Iraq would be to turn Iraq over to Iran.  Friedman says that Iran would then move toward taking over the super-rich but militarily-weak Saudi Arabia and its oil.  The Saudis have a large Shi'ite minority.  And they live around the Saudi oil fields.

Both Friedman and Kagan agree that because of Iran, the U.S. dare not stop fighting in Iraq, and must prevail there in order to keep Iran from dominating the region's militarily-weak oil countries.  Iran in charge of the world's biggest oil reserves, and what they would do with all that money to fuel their push for a new Caliphate over all the world, is what a retreating U.S. would be risking.

Sen. McCain Questions Petraeus & Crocker

Sept. 11: John McCain questions Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the Iraq war reports. (MSNBC)

Go here to see video of McCain's questioning.  http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=cf5bd617-0e77-4feb-b248-0a38b3e5ee5b&p=Source_MSNBC&t=m5  From MSNBC.com - Tuesday 9-11-07

Highlight of this exchange:

Sen. McCain: "Ambassador Crocker, what is your degree of confidence that Maliki will do some of the things that we have been asking them to do for a long time?"

Ambassador Crocker:  "My level of confidence is under control."  (Chuckles from Senators)

Crocker added that Maliki and the Iraqi government are making some modest steps that he finds encouraging, and that the government does have the intention of working together. 

On Monday Crocker testified that although the Iraqi government has not yet enacted formally what the U.S. has requested, they are already doing some of those things informally while proposed laws are being put together.  For instance, they are already sharing oil revenues with all the provinces, even though the formal law requiring that has not yet been finished and enacted.

(Hat Tip to www.wikio.com)

Video - Ambassador Crocker Testifies Before Congress

    Ambassador Royce Crocker Testifying Monday, September 10, 2007

        (Image from amyproctor.squarespace.com)

This is U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Royce Crocker testifying before Congress on Monday, 9-10-07.

(Hat tip and thanks to Amy Proctor, here ) 

Video - General Petraeus Before Congress

      General David Petraeus Testifies Before Congress Monday, September 10, 2007    

                                   (Image from amyproctor.squarespace.com)

This is the testimony of General David Petraeus, for those who missed it.

(Hat tip and thanks to Amy Proctor, here )

Petraeus-Crocker Update

                                                                                                

Gen. David Petraeus, top

Ambassador Ryan Crocker, bottom

(Images from afsouth.nato.int and islamabad.embassy.gov)

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were interviewed an hour on by Brit Hume on Fox News Monday.  Go here for part of that interview.  (The same page has other links to transcripts of their testimonies before Congress,, as well as videos of their interview by Brit Hume, about half-way down the page on the left.)

Both will be grilled - if not roasted - by Congressional committees again on Tuesday.

(See post below, "Testimony by Gen. Petraeus & Amb. Crocker Today"  for more background.)

Testimony by Gen. Petraeus & Amb. Crocker Today

                                           General David Petraeus

                                           (Image from a101avb,org)

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker

(Image from islamabad.usembassy.gov)

Today General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified before Congress concerning the situation in Iraq, and what course we should take in the future. 

Before Petreus' testimony today,  the New York Times ran a full-page ad by Moveon.org which attacked the credibility of Gen. Petraeus.  It asserted that he had been coached as to what to say by the Bush administration, and that he would not tell the truth.  It also called him "General Betray Us."

General Petraeus stated at the first of his testimony that he wrote his report himself, and had not shared it with either the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the White House.

Their testimony had not ended at almost 6 p.m. CDT.  But Ambassador Crocker summarized his testimony by saying "The present course in Iraq is hard; the alternatives are worse."  General Petraeus' testimony could be summarized by saying that surge is working, that gradual draw-downs in U.S. troops are coming, and that withdrawal would cede Iraq to predator countries, mainly Iran.

Both will be interviewed tonight at 9 EDT and 8 CDT by Brit Hume on Fox News.  Hume hopes to get their testimony in a much shorter, more condensed form.

I may post links to transcripts of these hearings later, as they become available.  Meanwhile, here is General Petraeus' opening statement before Congress earlier today. 

Update:

Here is Ambassador Ryan Crocker's opening statement before Congress earlier today. 

The Funniest Thing You Ever Saw!

                            (Image from historyforkids.org)

This is from Jay Leno's Tonight Show.  The guests are a woman and the chicken she saved from drowning by using CPR.  She is a born comic and had Jay and Terry Bradshaw in laughing fits. 

(I tried to watch this while snacking.  Don't do that!  Big mistake.  She had me laughing until tears ran down my face.  Better put that sandwich down first!)       

Clich here on Chicken CPR to see the video.

(Hat Tip and big Thank You to LeeAnn Clark.)

Lion Kisses Woman

         Woman Gets Hug, Kiss from Lion

                Link to the video is here

(Image from moonagewebdreams.blogs.com)

An African lion seems to have struck up a close friendship with the woman who saved his life.

Through the bars of his cage, an African lion named Jupiter stretches his giant paws around the neck of Ana Julia Torres and plants a kiss on her puckered lips...

How 'Backward' Islamists Will Force WW IV

                                  (Image from dailymail.co.uk)

Islamists come from backward countries without much of a military, or even much of an economy, except for oil.  So could they start, much less win, a truly world-wide war?

WW I, WW II and WW III (the Cold War) were fought by heavily industrialized, modern countries with huge militaries.  Their scientists were the best in the world, able to invent powerful new weapons.  The amounts of armaments the west produced was mind-boggling.

Now the U.S. is the most powerful country ever.  Its economy and military are unmatched.  It could literally wipe out any government in the world.  Many other Western countries also could devastate any less-developed country.

How then could people from such backward countries fight a world-wide war?  And continue it for a generation or more?  Or have any hope of winning?

Yet  Islamists believe they will win.   They believe Allah has commanded them to conquer the world and force it to be Muslim. They believe Allah has ordained this, and has foretold that it will happen.  And they believe Allah will award special delights to those who fight such a war.

But could they win?  Or even keep fighting?  Many experts say they could win.  They say WW IV has already started, will get much worse, and will last for generations.  Some of their reasons are here 

The Islamists have:

-A potential access to weapons of mass destruction that could devastate Western life.

-A religious appeal that provides deeper resonance and greater staying power than the aritificial ideologies of facism or communism.

-An impressively conceptualized, funded and organized institutional machinery that successfully builds credibility, good will and electoral success.

-An ideology capable of appealing to Muslims of every size and shape, from Lumpenproletariat to privileged, from illiterate to Ph.D.s, from the well-adjusted to psychopaths, from Yemenis to Canadians.

-a large number of committed cadres.  If Islamists constitute 10-15% of Muslims, they number some 125 million to 200 million, or a far greater total than all the facists and communists, combined, who ever lived. (All empnases added.) 

In short, the sheer size of what we are facing is daunting.  After all, even relatively low-tech attacks have the ability to seriously damage modern societies and economies, made fragile by being so highly interwoven and inter-dependent.

William F. Buckley comments:

Those critics who insist it is only a small war-party faction of the Islamists that we have to fear might have been asked a generation ago if it was not merely a small number of Germans and Russians we were properly exercised about.  Sixty million people were dead after that mis-reckoning.   

Fred Thompson's Announcement

Click here to see video of Fred Thompson's Announcement

And to see video of Fred Thompson announcing on Jay Leno's show, click on

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1541084876470065436&q=Fred+Thompson%27s+Announcement+on+Jay+Leno&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

US Poor Better Off Than AVERAGE European

Campaign Time Means Talking About the Poor

           (Image from ammanddickey.com)

In every political season, we hear a lot about the poor.  How much of what is proposed would actually help the poor?  Not much, actually  But that is a very important question, especiially for those of us who are deeply concerned about the poor.

But first another question should be asked.  How much of what is said by politicians even matches up with actual facts?  As it turns out, not much, actually.  Here are some helpful, well-researched facts about the poor in the United States.  You could be very surprised.

1.  43% of all poor households own their own homes - with an average of 3 bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

2.  80% have air conditioning (only 36% of all people in the US did in 1970.)

3.  Only 6% are overcrowded.  Over 2/3 have over 2 rooms per person.

4.  The average POOR American has more living space than the AVERAGE person in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.

5.  3/4 of US poor households own a car; 31% own 2 or more.

6.  97% of poor households own a color TV; over half own 2 or more.

7.  78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62% have cable or satellite TV.

8.  89% have microwave ovens; over half have a stereo; over 1/3 have an automatic dishwasher.

9.  The average consumption of proteins, vitamins and minerals is exactly the same for US poor and non-poor. Poor children eat more protein than non-poor children.

10.  Nearly 75% of poor children would be lifted out of poverty if at least one parent worked an average of 40 hours a week instead of 16 hours.

11.  Almost 75% of poor children would be lifted out of poverty if poor mothers married the fathers of their children.

12.  1/4 of all poor Americans are first-generation immigrants or their minor children.

13.  1/10 of all poor in America are illegal immigrants or their minor children.

All of the above is to say that THE AVERAGE POOR PERSON IN THE U.S. lives better than AVERAGE PEOPLE IN ADVANCED COUNTRIES, and much better than most Americans realize.

Still, we want them to move out of poverty.  How?  The above statistics strongly indicate the way out for most of the poor.  The author of the study summarizes them as:

A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigration, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

Wouldn't it be great to hear a few politicians out there say so?

Terrorist Attack at Giant US Air Base Thwarted

        (Image from images.stuckon-stupid.com)

Brietbart news reports that the enormous Ramstein Air Base in Germany, a major U.S. and NATO military hub, and the Frankfort International Airport were targets for a massive attack by Islamic terrorists, now in custody.

Germany had them under surveilance for a long time before arresting them Tuesday.  Officials in Denmark also arrested eight Islamist terrorists who were plotting to bomb there.

The German terrorists had over 1,500 pounds of high explosives, with more potential power than the ones used in the London subway and the Madrid transit bombings.  The planned attack was "massive" and "imminent."  They could have struck "in a few days," during a "sensitive period" that includes the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.   

But read the whole article. 

UPDATE 9.6.07: at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=480021&in_page_id=1811

Public Torture of Political Wives

Senator Craig Announces Resignation with Wife

       (Image from washingtonpost.com)

There she stands, holding a smile on her face.  Her personal anguish does not matter.  She has to be there, and to keep smiling.  Political wives are expected to do this.  But should they have to?  She didn't do anything.  Why can't the offending husband stand up there by himself, like a man?  Why drag his family in?  After already injuring his wife, why make a public spectacle of her in her deep distress, trying as hard as she can to smile and not crack?

We know why, of course.  He does this because, with it, he may have a chance.  Without it, he is cooked.

Remember how it happened with the Clintons.  No, not with Monica Lewinsky - that came later.  It was in the 1992 Presidential elections.  It was Gennifer Flowers, remember?  She was called a liar by the Clintons for alleging that she and Bill had had a long-running affair in Arkansas.  After being called a liar, she came up with recorded phone calls from Bill proving that they did indeed have a long affair.

At that point, Hilary had to do the obligatory smiling appearance on TV at Bill's side, proving she was "standing by her man" regardless.  As the pundits explained to us slow-thinking yokels out here in fly-over country, all the voters were watching to see how Hilary took it.  The principle was that what happened in a marriage was private, just between the husband and wife.  If the wife was OK with whatever the husband did, who were we to object?  It was their business, a private matter.  So if Hilary didn't leave Bill, we shouldn't either. 

In other words, what the wronged wife did in public was crucial to the politician's survival.  So she was obliged to appear - smiling - at his side as he confessed.  If she did not, then if his political downfall happened, it would be all her fault.  So deftly, unobtrusively, all the responsibility became hers.  She would let down his staff, his party and his voters unless she stood there smiling.  It would be she who destroyed his political career, not the politician who risked his career, and family, by indulging in some failing that got exposed.

What that means to a very publicly wronged wife, already publicly humiliated by supposedly "not being woman enough" to hold onto her man, and after being dissed by her husband before all the world, is that no matter how devastated she is, she absolutely must somehow manage to hold her face together and smile through an entire press conference.  That is while we all watch her closely for any crack in composure that would show that this was really not OK with her.  Nothing else will do, because nothing less would work.

This is wife abuse!  Not only by her offending husband, but by his staff, his party, the press and yes, us voters too.  What is this we are doing anyhow?

After the Clintons in 1992, then it was Dick Morris in the 1996 campaign, when he was photographed with a prostitute.  His wife dutifully appeared by his side, more or less smiling.  A divorce followed quickly.

Then came Newt Gingrich, admitting his affair.  His wife also stood at his side as he apologized.  A divorce followed quickly.

Then came Monica.  Hilary had to perform at Bill's side, again.

OK, since we all pretty well can figure out what is happening anyhow - why don't we just put a stop to this particularly slimy form of wife-abuse-in-public?  Can we resolve to punish every politician who ever requires his badly-wounded wife, already in a state of shock and grief, to do this?  Can we agree to hammer every such politician, his staff and his party, the press and whoever else, for participating in such public abuse of a devastated political wife?  After all, we already cringe as we watch her grimly-smiling ordeal - whichever wife is standing there this time.

It should be done.  Maybe we are slow-thinking yokels out here in fly-over country.  But I'll bet we know how to wipe out this shabby, repulsive form of wife abuse.  I'll bet that even we slow yokels see through a gimmick of somehow shifting the blame from the offender to one of his victims, his wife, if she refuses to be tortured in public in this way. 

Can we all just agree that whenever any politico does that in the future, he, his staff and his party all will be very, very sorry?  That ought to work.