The Obama link with Bill Ayers has been heating up lately in the press, and for good reason. That Obama has been a close friend of Ayers, and that Ayers is a huge political supporter of Obama (including helping him get his start in politics), is an important piece of information that the public should be made aware of.

Or, if you're Obama, you surely believe that the public should not be made aware of it. Reading how Obama's campaign has been trying to handle this issue reminds me heavily of the Clinton years. That is, when your opposition is trying to push out information that can destroy your political power, you do everything you can to shut them up.

Last week, the group American Issues Project released a commercial clearly outlining the links between Obama and Ayers.



Obama's initial response was to blame the whole thing on McCain - whose campaign wasn't a part of this commercial at all. But Obama's response only highlighted the issue further, and the media picked it up that much more. So Obama's campaign filed a complaint with the Justice Department against the American Issues Project, claiming that they violated FEC rules by running the ad.

Recently, Stanley Kurtz wrote an article for the National Review outlining the Obama-Ayers links, and his efforts to get access to archives at the Univsirty of Illinois at Chicago (where Ayers is a professor) that would further provide evidence of their close association while Obama served on a board of a group that Ayers founded at the university.

These records were only recently released a couple of days ago - after a lot of suspicious runarounds with the University (detailed in Kurtz' article, which was written before the University finally agreed to release the documents). Thus, Kurtz has a lot of light to shed on this issue as he has been pouring over this material over the last couple of days.

Kurtz is scheduled to be on WGN radio in Chicago this evening to discuss this, but Obama is seeking to have all discussion of the topic removed from the station:

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

The Obama campaign also urged supporters to flood the radio station with complaint calls. The Milt Rosenburg show asked the Obama campaign to send someone to appear on the show to respond, but that's not going to happen. Obama has steadfastly refused pretty much any talk radio appearance requests.

This is Obama's playbook - any time serious criticism is leveled against him, you do what you can to shut them up. Tell them your wife is off-limits (though she's campaigning heavily for you). Characterize them as as "right-wing hatchet man," a "smear-merchant," pushing "fear-mongering terrorist smears." Oh, and of course, you have to accuse them of "lowering the standards of political discourse." Then for good measure, file a complaint against them with the Justice Department, and hope that an investigation will either cost them a lot of money, or hopefully shut them down altogether.

This is the kind of tactic any typical politician would take - when you can't argue against a position, demonize the opposition and if possible, shut them down. If you seriously think that Obama, who was been handed multiple elections by a corrupt Chicago poltical machine, represents any "new kind of politics," you're going to be very, very disappointed.

This is the kind of tactic Obama uses while a candidate. Imagine what would happen if he becomes the president. Given that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats want to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, it would be easy for Democrats to squelch this kind of opposition using new FCC rules once they have full control of the government.

More of the same.

Labels: politics

If you've been following my blog for any time at all, you already know that I've become a fan of Frank Viola's books. Not that I've read that many of them, actually - the first one I read was Rethinking the Wineskin, a book that really shakes you down to your foundation in terms of the way you approach the New Testament. Earlier this year, Viola released Pagan Christianity with George Barna, his first in a series of re-releasing some of his older books, updated a little bit and with more serious publisher backing. Before Pagan, Frank Viola's books were a little more obscure.

Pagan Christianity garnered a lot of attention, partially because it came on the heels of Barna's Revolution. But the response was more intense, because it revealed the aspects of the modern institutional church that have no Biblical basis, and went further to discuss how they undermine Biblical principles. You can't publicly criticize nearly all aspects of the modern institutional church - church buildings, order of worship, sermons, the clergy system, dressing up for church, music ministers, tithing and salaries, modern baptism and communion practices, and modern Christian education - without getting a lot of backlash. I participated in many a blog discussion about that book, responding to a lot of criticisms from people who had actually never read the book.

In any case, the Christian community's reaction to Pagan (as well as to Revolution) all kind of missed the point. I think it's important to scrutinize all of the things we find in the institutional church, and to step outside of it - but if it just stops there, you're left with nothing. Or in some cases, just a smaller copy of the institutional church that happens to meet in a house. The question really is, if we shake off all of the institutional baggage, what do we do instead? The answer to that, thankfully, is found in the New Testament. And dealing with that is what Reimagining Church is all about. It's not about creating some new church, really - it's about reimagining in light of a true apostolic tradition - the apostolic tradition that has been passed down to us as scripture.

If Pagan shed light on all of the aspects of the modern institutional church that are not Biblical, Reimagining is about shedding light on Biblical practices that the modern institutional church chooses to ignore.

While Pagan Christianity was an update of a previous Viola book with the same title, Reimagining Church is actually an update of Rethinking the Wineskin. So I don't really have to go into too much detail about it - if you really want to know more about Reimagining, read my comments about Wineskin, which were very detailed and broken down essentially by chapter. (My comments on that one were possibly too detailed - I always fear that authors will get offended if I quote and summarize so much!)

I covered the following areas of the original book:

• Gatherings
  
• Common Meal
  
• The House
  
• Family/Community
  
• Leadership - Oversight
  
• Leadership - Visionary
  
• Purpose
  
• Membership
  
• Boundary
  
• Tradition

All of these elements are in the updated book, though organized a little differently, and expanded in some cases. So I'll just give you my impression of the difference.

Overall, I'd say that this book is quite a bit better. While every bit as challenging and disturbing (in the appropriate sense), I think some of the reorganization helped the book to come across a little more clearly. Early on in the book, Viola included some specific testimonies of people who have been exposed to organic church - this was a great idea, and helped to bring the book down to a relational level early on.

One of the aspects that people struggle with the most when discussing issues of organic Christianity is the lack of official leadership. Viola includes an entirely new chapter to address specific questions people have, based on specific scriptures, as well as dealing in a general sense with the word choices used in the original Greek compared to how we translate and use those words today to justify hierarchical, authoritative church structures (any church with a "pastor"). This chapter alone is worth the new version of the book, and I'd encourage someone (perhaps even Viola) to go further and deal with this type of topic in a book all its own.

I did find it interesting that the metaphor of the "wineskin" was almost totally absent from this book. It is described once or twice, and alluded to a couple of times, but this is far different from how prominently the metaphor was featured in the original. What was really good, though, and totally new to this book, was the emphasis of the trinity as the organizing metaphor. Specifically, that the church is really supposed to reflect the image of the trinity - no hierarchical structure, mutual submission, unity, etc. This was a fundamental shift that I think had a great impact on the book. The metaphor of the trinity better reflects the nature of the church, and is a better returning point than the wineskin was.

There is one quote I wanted to share from this book. I shared a similar quote from the original, but it is important enough that it bears repeating.

Seeking to repair a house that has cracks in its foundation will never prove productive. I believe it's time that we honestly examined the structural integrity of the modern church system. I strongly believe that the clergy system, which includes the modern pastoral office, is what needs to be abandoned. It's the system that's one of the main culprits, not the people, the motives, or the intentions. Experience has taught me that an institutional church will never fully embody the dream of God until it recognizes that the framework within which it operates is inadequate and self-defeating. Despite the good intentions of the persons who populate it, the interior design of the organized church sets us up for defeat.

True renewal, therefore, must be radical. That means it must go to the root.

The concept of clergy, and more important, the idea of a "pastor," is central to the experience of Christians who have been raised up in a modern institutional church. And to those of us who have had this experience, it is the idea of stripping this away the "pastor" that is the most disturbing aspect. The pastor represents some sense of safety, in that even if I don't know what to believe or what to do, at least the "pastor," who is "ordained," and is professionally committed to the church, will provide me with good leadership. Yet an honest examination of the New Testament reveals that there is nothing there that justifies the modern concept of "pastor." And it is this single concept that most plagues the church and keeps her members silent and passive in the Christian life. The pastor stands, almost literally, between us and Christ - as long as we look to that official leadership we will never fully understand the functional headship of Christ and the mutual edification between members of Christ's body.

In some ways, I think that Revolution, Pagan Christianity, and Reimagining Church are like a trilogy. Like any great trilogy, the first part, Revolution, introduces the players, the problems, and the concepts. While it can stand alone, it alone it does not tell the whole story. Pagan Christianity plays the role of the middle part of a trilogy - things turn dark, problems continue to rise, until you're not sure how things can possibly get better. Then finally, like in the last part of the great trilogies, Reimagining Church reveals the way out, the way back to how things were better back back in the beginning, and redefines the way you see the entire story.

It takes radical thought to challenge the existing institutional church tradition. But it is exactly this tradition that must be scrutinized. If you've ever asked the question why - as in why in the world do churches do things the way they do - you owe it to yourself to read this great trilogy - but if you only read one of them, read Reimagining Church. But be warned: it just might make you question everything about the modern institutional church.

Labels: books, church, house church, reviews

Somebody sent me a link to this YouTube video today. It does an awesome job highlighting Obama's shifting positions on Iraq.



This video includes the following quotes from Obama:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." (January 10, 2007, MSNBC)

"And I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence." (January 5, 2008, Democratic debate)

The video provides this "translation:" You're never wrong if you pretend you gave the right answer all along.

Also:

"It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve." (October 22, 2006, Meet the Press)

"My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." (July 18, 2007, Today)

"Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there." (November 11, 2007, Meet the Press)

This is important because Obama will be coming back from Iraq, and he will have to radically change his tune. In fact, he already has - the Obama website has removed portions that claim the surge is not working. Why? Because the surge has been working. Violence is way, way down. Which means that McCain was right all along. And Obama will shift his position on Iraq, again. As he has done with so many things. But in doing so, he will upset his angry left base, and to the center he will reveal himself as a man with no principles.

Bill Clinton could get away with stuff like this. For one thing, he was a better liar. But far more importantly, Obama has to contend with the internet, which is a vast archive of all of his previous positions. He can't plausibly claim now that he thought the surge would work, despite the fact that he opposed it, because when he originally opposed it he said (quite eloquently, I might add) that the surge would make the situation worse. But he likewise can't tell the truth and say that he was against it all along, because doing so removes any credibility that as commander-in-chief he could make the right decision.

Perhaps the best part about this video, that is so hard-hitting against Obama, is that it comes from the McCain campaign. This is a good sign - that they have the gumption to call Obama out on his lies, and that they will use the internet to get this message out.

The center has always belonged to McCain, for good or ill, and he doesn't have to "shift" to get there at all. But as Obama tries to shift to the center, he will meet the same problems that Kerry did in 2004. His record is far too liberal to survive the shift. The only variable left is how tough McCain will get. If this video is any indication, McCain is ready to pull if off.

Labels: politics

Several Supreme Court decisions came down in the last couple of days. As is the case with many Supreme Court decisions, you have the conservative wing (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) opposite the liberal wing (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer). Therefore, Justice Kennedy seems to hold the key to what the court will decide, and he did in each of these cases.

District of Columbia v Heller - The Supreme Court finally analyzed whether or not the "right to keep and bear arms" applies to the government or to individuals. Of course, no other right in the Bill of Rights was applied to the government. The Bill of Rights essentially either places restrictions on government by securing to rights to individuals. Liberals have been arguing for years that the "right to keep and bear arms" wasn't on par with freedom of speech, press, or religion. The conservative wing of the court was joined by Justice Kennedy to provide a sensible, plain interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Kennedy v Louisiana - The Supreme Court decided that states cannot provide the death penalty as an option for punishment of those convicted of child rape, saying that this violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Look, either the death penalty is cruel and unusual or it isn't. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the death penalty (even as recently as two months ago!), but it seems like the court (at least the liberal wing of it) wants to micromanage exactly how it can be used. Justice Kennedy joined the liberal wing of the court.

Boumediene v Bush - The Supreme Court said "just kidding" (according to Scalia's dissent) and required the executive branch to grant all detainees at Guantanamo Bay full habeas corpus rights. (Previously, the court instructed Congress to outline a process for the military to apply to consider a detainee's request for release, which was passed as the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This ruling basically makes that act of Congress worthless.) Essentially, the judicial branch is now determining how the executive branch should wage war, including what rights it must grant upon enemy combatants captured in the field of war. Judicial activism at it's finest. Justice Kennedy again joined the liberal wing of the court.

The point isn't whether you personally agree with the liberal or conservative view of any of these decisions. The question is whether the decision was based on a principle of the separation of powers, and whether a right is explicitly defined by the Constitution or not.

For instance, the "right to keep and bear arms" is explicitly in the 2nd amendment, and residents of Washington, DC have been denied that right for some time. The liberal wing of the court wanted to continue to deny them of that right. The conservative wing of the court sees that the 2nd amendment was passed by legislative and democratic processes, and that it is outside of the government's power to completely deny them a right specifically guaranteed to them.

In terms of capital punishment, a case could be made that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" - however, the court has repeatedly upheld this as a form of punishment. In what circumstances a punishment should be applied is open to interpretation, but it is exactly this kind of interpretation that was destined for legislatures to debate through democratic processes. Instead, the liberal wing of the court likes to look for "evolving standards," "national consensus," and making their own decisions about what is an acceptable "proportional punishment." These types of decisions were never meant to be decided by unaccountable judges, only by elected officials.

With regards to enemy combatants, the power to wage war is vested in one individual, the commander-in-chief. Congress declares war, but the president wages it. And the president is accountable, as an elected official. As the Supreme Court enters into the issue, our ability to wage war must now be held against standards set by an unaccountable, unelected branch of government. Congress is given the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts, which is what it did in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But for some reason the Supreme Court can just decide that this law is worthless, and instead of allowing the president to wage a war that was declared by the Congress, it has stepped in and declared that enemy combatants have the same rights as citizens under the Constitution (at least with respect to habeas corpus).

The liberal wing of the court likes to accomplish by judicial fiat what cannot be accomplished through legislative means. Protecting judges from political pressure is not supposed to be a blank check to enacting whatever changes they desire. But in a world where the Supreme Court is the most politically active and most politically powerful institution in the land, we should not be surprised that nominations and confirmation hearings are as politically charged as they have become since the Democrats made a mockery of the process with Robert Bork. (The slanderous accusations made by Ted Kennedy led to Bork's defeat, and to today's situation of Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.)

Conservatives desire justices who read the laws, interpret, and apply them. Liberals desire justices who will continue to uphold the court's liberally activist past, while forging ahead into new frontiers of liberal activism impossible to pass legislatively.

All of this becomes extremely important when deciding who to vote for this November for president.

UPDATE: Larrey Anderson dealt with this same topic in Justice Anthony Kennedy and Our Schizophrenic Supreme Court, and summed the problem up well: "Your personal right to firearms was one vote away from being thrown on the ash heap of history. And it still is. Cities, like New York, with strict gun control laws, will be sued in federal court using the holding from Heller. Justice Kennedy could change his mind tomorrow." Ann Coulter also handled this topic mightily in last week's column, Justice Kennedy: American Idle.

Labels: politics

In 10 Concerns about Barack Obama, Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn outline ten reasons to be very concerned about Obama. Head over to the article for the full reasoning, but here's the list, with my comments:

"Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous, naïve, and betrays a profound misreading of history." He likes to compare his desire to meet with our enemies to Reagan meeting with Gorbachev - which only happened after Gorbachev began making changes and revealed himself as a different kind of leader. And also only happend AFTER Reagan called the Soviet Union out as an "evil empire." Reagan's views were best summed up as "peace through strength" and "trust but verify."

"Barack Obama’s Iraq policy will hand al-Qaeda a victory and undercut our entire position in the Middle East, while at the same time put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists." With all the progress made in Iraq in the past several months, Obama still hasn't changed his tune on this. Obama will simply hand Iraq to al-Qaeda on a silver platter.

"Barack Obama has sent mixed, confusing, and inconsistent messages on his policy toward Israel." Saying one thing to AIPAC one day and quickly backtracking from it the next, he's confused both supporters of Israel and those who desire to destroy it (Obama did receive an endorsement from Hamas).

"In the primary campaign, Barack Obama consistently campaigned against NAFTA, but has now changed his tune, as he has with other issues." They also point out his switch on public campaign financing. Along with his switches on support for Israel, it looks like the Democrats have picked another flip-flopper.

"Barack Obama’s judgment about personal and professional affiliations is more than troubling." Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers were bad enough, but the list keeps getting longer. These types of affiliations represent the types of people he will appoint for positions in his administration, as ambassadors, as judges, etc.

"Obama is simply out of step with how terrorists should be handled; he would turn back the clock on how we fight terrorism, using the failed strategy of the 1990s as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy that has kept us safe." Obama considers it no big deal that captured terrorists will have to be granted habeas-corpus rights under the recent Supreme Court ruling. He considers the first World Trade Center bombing to be a shining example of battling terrorists - wait until they bomb us, then arrest them and keep them in prison. That mentality didn't protect the country on 9/11, and a break from that mentality has kept us safer over the past seven years. Obama would return back to the "law enforcement" strategy that gave us a false sense of security.

"Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy." Obama wants to increase taxes on income, payroll, capital gains, dividends, and inheritance. His proposals would have a devastating affect on the economy, which is currently struggling. Add tax hikes on top of that, and you can bet that the economy will go into a full-blown recession.

"Barack Obama opposes drilling on and offshore to reduce gas and oil prices." Despite the way Democrats like to blame oil companies, the only way to reduce the price of a limited resource is to either reduce demand or increase supply. Better yet, do both. And while you're at it, keep money away from terrorist-sponsoring countries. That's not going to happen under Obama.

"Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life." Like all liberals, Obama has a very weak argument for his position on abortion, voting against any abortion restriction he's had in front of him.

"Barack Obama is actually to the left of every member of the U.S. Senate." Kerry's heavy (and lengthy) liberal voting record hurt him greatly in 2004. Obama doesn't have that long of a voting record in the Senate, yet the record he does have has earned him the title of "the most liberal Senator in 2007." He received a score of 95.5 from the National Journal, higher than any other Senator.

So what good is inspiration if it is accompanied by all of this? If you're a liberal through and through, I can see why you're excited about Obama. For the first time since 1996, you have a presidential candidate that represents your views who is more expressive than a doorknob. But for the rest of you Obama supporters out there, why does a candidate's inspirational voice mean that you can gloss over all of these serious problems?

Labels: politics

There are so many lessons of the failure of socialism during the 20th century that the left refuses to learn from. 120 years ago, socialism was a bright idea that many wanted to try out and experiment with. America weathered that storm, in some ways, despite the socialist influences present in the New Deal and the entitlement programs that followed. But liberals still crave more and more socialism, believing that while every nation to try socialist principles has failed, they will be the ones to finally get it right.

There was an awesome opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today about Argentina, titled From Breadbasket to Basket Case. In it, Mary Anastasia O'Grady describes Argentina's "ballooning entitlements, class warfare, hostility toward producers, capital and private property, protectionism and subsidized central-planning." Argentina has been going through political upheaval in the past decade, repeating the benefits of nearly 90 years of of socialist experimentation.

If America is not cautious, we will be in a similar problem. The dollar is already having trouble on the world market. Democrats find it easy to get the spotlight by blaming just about any problem on companies that are turning a profit. Entitlements are already out of control - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all in serious danger and are growing at unsustainable rates, but all Democrats want to talk about is adding a huge new entitlement in the form of "universal health care." Just this past week some congressional Democrats expressed their desire to have the government take over oil refineries. The sad thing is, 37% of Democrats think the oil industry should be nationalized.

Socialists knew that this would happen in America.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. -- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

This situation should not be surprising to us. In a climate where few people understand the basic principle of supply and demand, because of the lousy state of government education, it is easy for an eloquent, inspiring speaker to come along and talk about "change" and pull on people's heartstrings, while promoting what is, more or less, a socialist agenda. Few people understand the principles behind this inspiration, and what the long-term effects on the government and our economy could very well be.

In many, many ways, it's 1976 all over again. My mom recently admitted to me that she voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. My mother is no fool, but she was convinced that this was a really nice man who would be a great president. She was wrong. And it took the mistake of Jimmy Carter for us to get Ronald Reagan (who my mother voted for twice).

Does America have to make a mistake again in 2008? Or will it learn from the thousands of mistakes made by socialist governments and leaders with socialist leanings over the past century?

We'll know the answer to that in November.

Labels: politics

Odie Mooney

1995 - June 3, 2008

Odie was, simply put, the greatest cat in the world.

He passed away last night, at home, after a couple of weeks of not eating well and losing a lot of weight. The vet visit on Sunday confirmed that all of his blood cell counts were decreasing, which indicated a bone marrow problem. We tried some prescription food with him Sunday evening and yesterday, but he wouldn't eat anything. We even tried plain tuna last night and he completely ignored it.

Odie was a stray when we found him. Before we were married, Amy was living with some friends in an apartment, and one day as she came home there was a kitty cat outside. She called to the kitty, and he came towards her, and the cat enjoyed the attention - something very unusual for a stray. Amy also noticed that the kitty's leg had been injured, like it had been broken. She took pity on the stray cat and started feeding him occasionally.

Before long, calling for "kitty" would result in him running towards her, meowing as he came. We took him to the vet, who told us that he was about a year old, and had FIV - the feline version of the HIV virus - and should be kept separate from cats that did not have FIV. With this condition, they said, he could live a couple of years or as many as 10.

His leg had indeed been broken, but had already set and it would be a major ordeal to re-break it and heal it correctly. He didn't seem to have any trouble getting around, so we left things as they were.

We named him "Odie" after the dog in the Garfield comic strip, for several reasons. First, he came when you called him. He also starting responding to snapping fingers - we'd snap and he'd come running. He also tended to drool a lot. He was always looking for attention, and would let you pet him like a dog - including petting his tummy, something I do NOT recommend trying with other cats (especially if they have claws!).

I kept Odie outside at my parents house, initially, since my sister already had an indoor cat. Amy and I were married in 1997, and he became a part of our family. He was there when we moved into our apartment.

It was always apparent to us that Odie had not always been a stray. He was way too interested in human affection, but also the first time we opened a can at our apartment he went nuts. So we knew he had been fed from a can at some point.

Like a dog, Odie was an over-eater. If we filled his bowl with food, he would eat the entire bowl in one sitting, even if it meant that most of it would come back up later. So we quickly learned to feed him the "right" amount, twice a day, just like a dog.

When we had guests over, including a large party, Odie was always in the middle of it, looking for attention. The picture above was taken at McKenna's birthday party in December. Odie was right in the middle of it, like he always was.

When McKenna was about 2 and a half years old we discovered that she was having mild allergic reactions to him. After petting him her face would have a minor rash, even if we washed her hands afterwards. So we started looking for another home for him.

After awhile, our friends Kevin and Faith took him in at their apartment, where Odie had his home away from home. Odie spent a few years there, until Kevin went to college, and married housing didn't allow pets. Meanwhile, we were finishing our basement at our new house that would be a great place for Odie to hang out. So last fall Odie came home.

McKenna and Jeremiah had really begun to enjoy Odie again. We kept wanting to see if McKenna still had an allergy, but McKenna insisted on petting Odie only with her bare feet. Which didn't bother Odie at all.

A couple of months ago Odie stopped eating as well as he used to. We tried to start using canned food with him, and that improved things, but soon after that he wasn't eating that very well, either. We took him to the vet about three weeks ago, where they discovered a heart murmur, and found that all of his blood cell counts were low - which indicates that the bone marrow is not doing its job. Last Sunday's visit confirmed that diagnosis, but we really thought we could get him eating prescription food (or plain tuna) enough to go on for a few weeks. We also thought that this process would last a little longer, but it seemed to happen so quickly.

Even up to the very end, Odie was still a sweet kitty. Last night I was downstairs with the kids playing a video game with them, and Odie came up and sat down right between us. Looking for attention. Naturally, we obliged. We tried to give him lots of extra love over the past couple of days, including a good brushing (which he always loved).

We will miss Odie. I'm really glad that he was able to be at home with us for a few months, and that the kids could get to know him again.

McKenna wants to know if Odie is in heaven. I told her that if dogs and cats go to heaven, Odie is surely there - he was such a loving, sweet, and gentle cat. If Odie is in heaven, his heaven is likely to be a place with lots of hands to pet him and lots of feet for him to rub on.

In many ways, he spoiled us, because after having the greatest cat in the world, any other cat won't quite do.

Labels: life

From NASA:

For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. All three are seen in this image made from data recorded on May 9 and 10 with the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. The spots extend above the surrounding clouds and their red color may be due to deeper material dredged up by the storms and exposed to ultraviolet light, but the exact chemical process is still unknown. For scale, the Great Red Spot has almost twice the diameter of planet Earth, making both new spots less than one Earth-diameter across. The newest red spot is on the far left (west), along the same band of clouds as the Great Red Spot and is drifting toward it. If the motion continues, the new spot will encounter the much larger storm system in August. Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

First Earth, then Mars. Now Jupiter. There are other reports of warming on Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, and various moons of other planets. When will the madness end? Pretty soon "global warming" (oh, I'm sorry, "climate change") will affect all of the planets in our little corner of the universe.

Of course, you'd think some people would make the connection about what is common between all these planets warming up.

Government education at work.

Labels: politics