Skin Changes -- Current and Future

I have replaced the "Low Bandwidth" skin with one called "No Frills". The new skin uses no graphics, has no sidebar and only has blog content. On the main page, there are links to the archive page and the skins gallery at the top, but that's all. I figured this would be good for those who want something that loads fast and don't care about all the extra stuff. The original "Low Bandwidth" was supposed to be a simple, basic layout, but I felt that it didn't go far enough because of laziness on my part. (The way I had the templates set up, I had to use an image on the comments pop-up and for the post separator. I have now changed things so that this is no longer the case.) Anyway, "No Frills" is on the dropdown list on the sidebar and is in the gallery.

I'm also working on a couple of new skins. One is going to become the new default layout. Don't worry -- the lilac Gibson Girls layout isn't going anywhere. It will still be available...it will just no longer be the default.

Photoblogging the March for Life

Bunnie Diehl has lots of photos from today's March for Life in Washington DC. Just start here and go forward. Or start at the top and scroll down.

Incidentally, in this post (linked by Dawn Eden), pro-abortion feminists tell pro-life Democrats to get lost.

Sick Update

I went to the urgent care doctor after leaving work early yesterday because I was coughing constantly, couldn't breath through my nose (even with the help of nasal spray) and could feel the cold moving down into my chest. Sure enough, I was getting bronchitis (again), so I got the usual: a Z-pack and Tussionex cough syrup. I'm still sick, but I'm getting better. Those two prescriptions always fix me right up. Now, if people and things at work would just quit irritating me...I definitely need to go home early again today.

For some reason, I'm really prone to getting bronchitis. Three years ago, I had it twice in four months. Since then, I've been lucky...until now.

Update: The roofers just arrived to put a new roof on my house. (The present one was damaged by Hurricane Ivan.) I'm glad about this, but it's going to be really noisy at my house the rest of the day!

Prayer Requests

Until I feel up to posting again, I would like to pass along a couple of prayer requests:

• Lee Anne Millinger and her family need your prayers.
• Dawn Eden has a prayer request from an Army Chaplain.

Sick Days

Sorry for the lack of posts. I have a really bad head cold. I first got this cold almost three weeks ago. It had almost gone away, but then on Friday I started feeling like it was coming back. Sure enough, it did, and I've been really sick the whole long weekend. I'll be back when I'm feeling better.

Men in Commercials

Steve H. posts about the way men are depicted in commercials. I have read other blog posts on this subject, but Steve's is particularly worth reading.

I also really hate the way men are portrayed in commercials. Usually they are shown to be stupid, incompetent and ineffectual as father figures. I can understand somebody being the butt of a joke in a humorous commercial, but why is it considered off-limits for a woman to be the butt of a joke?

Many of Steve's commenters gave examples of "idiot man" commericials, and I posted about one that I found really annoying. It was a radio ad for an internet company (I think) that aired quite a bit on the local talk radio station a few months ago.

In this ad, a father asks his teenage son to let him use the computer for a few minutes. The son is very disrespectful and refuses, saying he is doing his homework. The father again begs his son to let him on the computer and the snotty, disrespectful teenage son again refuses. Then the mother comes in wanting to use the computer and the son immediately lets her use it. The father is, of course, flabbergasted, and I guess this is supposed to be funny.

However, imagine if this commercial were turned around, with the teenage son being snotty to his mother and immediately deferring to the father. Suddenly, it wouldn't be "funny" and I imagine there would be some outrage.

It has been said that for humor to be effective, it must have some truth to it. Is it honest to portray men as being perpetually stupid and clueless? Steve puts it this way:

How many times did your Dad rescue you when you were growing up? How many times did he rescue you?

Right.

Exactly.

Predictable

When I saw this story on Drudge earlier today, I thought to myself, "Wait for it...here comes the hysteria...5...4...3...2..."

ONE!

As Saint Kansas says:

I don't recall a similar reaction back when Jimmy Carter, "the first evangelical president," spoke of his faith. (Of course, Jimmy Carter is the kind of evangelical Christian that even the left can love.) Southern Baptist Bill Clinton too had just the right amount of faith to not be so threatening. But W mentions the Lord even after all the evangelicals have cast their votes. That's just scary.

But Jimmy Carter is fashionably pacifistic, plus he's so tolerant and non-judgmental of dictators like Castro. And Bill Clinton wasn't some repressed prude hung up on silly, trivial things like sexual morality.

I have noticed that among George W. Bush's detractors, there seems to be two different ridiculous takes on his faith.

One is that he isn't a real Christian because he isn't a pacifist or a socialist. Because, of course, all real Christians are pacifists and socialists.

The other is that he's a scary, horrible warmongering fundamentalist* Christian who's on a crusade to establish a hegemonic Christian theocracy with the help of those diabolic neocons.

So, along with Sullivan's whine about atheists being disenfranchised, expect the usual boring hysteria and outrage over Bush's statement over the next few days. It will come from both of the camps mentioned above.

It's all so predictable.

*Never mind that he's, I think, a Methodist, and Methodists are hardly fundamentalists. But then again, most of the people who throw the word "fundamentalist" around have no idea what it really means. To them, it refers to any Christian who is orthodox in his beliefs and takes those beliefs seriously.

About this whole Kid Rock brouhaha...

What he said, what she said...and what she said. Yes, I agree with them all, although they have divergent opinions on this little controversy.

First of all, let me say that I can't stand Kid Rock. Even if he didn't have songs with filthy lyrics that demean women (see the bottom of Malkin's post), I still wouldn't like his music. The country-rock/rap hybrid just doesn't appeal to me.

But he has been invited to perform at a youth party at the Inauguration, and I think it would very bad form to disinvite him at this point. In other words, they are stuck, so they just better hope he behaves himself and performs his cleaner material. Since he has toured with the USO and performed for our troops (which I think is admirable), he is most likely capable of controlling himself.

The thing I'm conflicted about is this: should Kid Rock have been invited in the first place?

From Jeff Blogworthy:

We cannot persuade everyone to our way of thinking in a single epiphany. If we want people like Kid Rock and his followers to change and embrace a better way of life, it is a change that will occur incrementally. If we immediately break fellowship, what chance do we have to persuade them? If someone trapped in the homosexual lifestyle wants to attend my bible-believing church should I show him or her the door saying, "Sorry, we do not want your kind here?"[...]

While I do not approve of Kid Rock’s lifestyle, I respect the fact that he has stood up and gone against the grain of his contemporaries. He has put himself on the line professionally. What if others are considering following Kid Rock’s example but are afraid to do so because of liberal establishment pressure? What if they then see Kid Rock’s thankless fate and decide it is not worth it?

From Baldilocks:

It’s interesting that some conservative Christians would rather bar this man, as if he were a leper, rather than teach him, lead him and embrace him. It’s almost as though he’s been asking to be embraced by his countrymen—especially including those of us who are justified by faith--by celebrating things American rather than spitting on them as well as all things Christian.

The guy has long been reaching out. Somebody ought to grab his hand, rather than slap it away.

From Andrea Harris:

Maybe just once we could quit looking for boobies on the internet and giggling at swear words on Fox long enough to appreciate people dancing without thrusting their crotches at each other and listening to music that isn't all about 1) how sexy the singer is, 2) how great sex with the singer is, 3) how the singer is the most important being in the whole world, 4) how women can't wait to rip off their clothes and spread their legs for the singer; not to mention has a discernable melody and a beat that doesn't resemble the sound of a Ford Fairlane engine with a thrown rod. This is a Republican administration, and that should mean uptight and dignified, not "just like the Democrats only pro-gun."

I agree with all three of the above. So you can see why I'm conflicted.

One thing I don't like about this whole brouhaha is the pounding that social conservatives and Christian conservatives have been taking. So, because we object to lyrics that degrade women and sex, because we don't like the mainstreaming of pr0n, because we acknowledge that there are some seriously sick things going on in our culture, we are the second coming of the Taliban and we want to "eradicate" those we disagree with. Yes, it's much easier to dismiss the concerns of social conservatives when you make us all out to be Donald Wildmon.

That's not to say that social/Christian conservatives are above criticism. Again from Jeff Blogworthy:

I am going to say a few words now which are targeted directly at the "Christian right." I believe in Christian liberty. This means walking a fine line between legalism and libertinism; it is not an easy thing to do. If we drift too far towards legalism, we become like the self-righteous Pharisees, enslaving ourselves and others with a litany of moral laws. If we drift to the other extreme of libertinism, we will drown in a sea of sinful hedonism and self-indulgence, thereby destroying our Christian witness and spiritual life. One thing is just as bad as the other - I humbly appeal to you for balance between the two. We cannot expect the unredeemed to behave as the redeemed. Let's work on introducing them to Jesus - their behavior will follow. We cannot do that if we act as though we are ashamed to be seen with them.

I agree...it is a difficult balancing act. Maybe that's why I have a hard time deciding whether Kid Rock should have been invited or not.

Update: I need to clarify something. When I referred to the "pounding" social conservatives were taking in this post, I was thinking more of the comments in general than what Jeff Goldstein said specifically. It was not my intention to attack him.

Jeff did take issue with a couple of comments from this post on Malkin's blog. I thought that he took them the wrong way, but my own biases may be causing me to interpret them differently than he did.

Takin' Out the Eurotrash!

Sometimes you have to tell certain people off, even if it is "unprofessional".

(Thanks to Kathy Shaidle, Recovering Liberal.)

An Economic Third Way

The Center for Economic and Social Justice recently emailed me about a book the organization has republished. The book, The Four Winners, was written by Knute Rockne. While it is aimed at young adults and is centered on football, this book sounds interesting and edifying even if you're a not-so-young adult or have no interest in sports. It certainly looks interesting to me, so I'm adding it to my wish list.

In addition to the book, I wanted to mention that I found the aims of the CESJ very interesting. As I've said on this site before, while I believe in free enterprise, I believe it should be tempered by morality. What the CESJ proposes is an economic "just third way". This third way rejects both socialism (which represses personal and economic freedom) and laissez-faire capitalism (which excuses any abuse or exploitation as long as someone makes a buck).

I find the whole concept of this third way intriguing. I would be interested in hearing what others think of this "Just Third Way", so feel free to post your thoughts on this in the comments. I would especially be interested in hearing what libertarians and liberals think of this.