Follow Up to Missouri River Flooding Post

I wanted to post a follow up to my earlier post so that readers can better understand the mind-boggling magnitude of this event. Here is a gallery of pictures of the flooding:

http://www.ncnewspress.com/photos/x437339674/Photo-gallery-Missouri-River-flooding-2011?page=0

It is truly huge and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that hundreds of thousands of people have been adversely affected. The victims are generally not wealthy people with expensive riverfront properties, whining because they don't have flood insurance. Many, if not most, are rural or lower middle class working people who live in small homes or even trailer parks. The businesses are not big box retailers but convenience stores and restaurants located near the river or interstate, who struggle in the best of times. In addition, many of the locations are not considered to be in the Missouri River flood plain, but as in the case of my family members, miles from the river itself.

I personally know two families that have been driven from their homes since June. My afore-mentioned relatives are living in a travel trailer for the foreseeable future. They, along with their neighbors, spent their own money to build a temporarly levee around their houses, and moved nearly all of their belongings into storage for the duration of the flood. So far their homes are dry but are still threatened and considered too dangerous to occupy. The other family, fortunately, has not seen their home inundated, but their access road is underwater, and they are renting a place to live in until they can return.

These are just two examples out of thousands. Some of those impacted have stayed in their houses, although their basements are full of water and mold. Council Bluffs in particular is home to many poor working-class people who are being severely stressed by the flooding.

It is difficult to understand why this story has not become prominent in the national media given its scope and the amount of money it is costing ordinary families.

Nowhere To Turn For Victims of Months-long, Government-caused Disaster

You may be forgiven for not knowing much about the catastrophic Missouri River flooding that has caused billions of dollars in damage, closed interstate highways for months, and driven thousands of people from their homes. The only time it garnered national attention was when it appeared that a local nuclear power plant might be damaged by floodwaters. A cynical person might wonder if the national media was hoping for a dangerous radiation leak, in order to highlight the risks of nuclear energy. Fortunately, no catastrophe resulted from that incident, since the plant was already shut down.

Flooded farms and businesses

It all started in early June, when the Army Corps of Engineers anounced that it would be increasing water releases from dams located upstream, in Montana and South Dakota, to up to three times the normal flows. The releases were needed to accommodate heavy rainfall upstream, as well as higher than normal snowmelt. Residents of affected areas were warned to evacuate their homes, including some of my family members who live six miles from the river (their location was threatened by nearby creeks backing up since normal flows into the Missouri would be prevented by the high water levels). Evacuees were instructed to prepare for months of living away from their homes, and indeed, the high water is just now beginning to recede. As you might expect, the prospect of abandoning one's home for several months is disruptive to say the least. Many homeowners removed all furnishings from their homes, as well as ripping out drywall and carpet on lower levels, to minimize mold and damage caused by standing water.

In addition to the thousands of individual victims of the flooding, cities and towns along the Missouri have been forced to spend millions of dollars shoring up levees that were never intended to hold up under months of elevated water levels. Parks and businesses have closed due to being cut off by floodwaters. The Omaha airport, Eppley Airfield, has fortified surrounding levees and drilled over 70 wells from which to pump out groundwater that threatens its runways. The City of Omaha has installed several gigantic pumps to empty water from storm sewers over its floodwall into the river, in order to prevent widespread street flooding.

Pumps moving water from storm sewers into the river in Omaha

Interstate 29 has been closed since June north and south of Council Bluffs, Iowa, necessating detours of up to 30 miles for area traffic. Missouri River crossings at several Nebraska, Missouri, and Iowa towns have also been closed, causing great inconvenience and financial harm to businesses located near the crossings.

Interstate 29 north of Council Bluffs, Iowa

Now comes the news that FEMA has denied individual assistance to flood victims in Iowa. According to the linked article, at least 582 homes must be destroyed in order for areas to qualify for disaster assistance. Most likely there will be a number greatly in excess of that, but since there are many homes still inundated which are currently inaccessable, final assessments can't be completed in a timely manner.

Granted, we never had national news stories of people standing on their roofs, crying out for help from the government. Instead, we had neighbors helping neighbors and a can-do, self-sufficient attitude. Almost anyone with a pickup truck was offering help to those forced from their homes. We had thousands of volunteers filling millions of sandbags to reinforce our levees, and responsible precautions that have saved lives and minimized flood damage. Nevertheless this disaster, directly caused by actions of federal agencies, has resulted in untold expense to individuals, businesses, states, and municipalities. Why now is our request for assistance denied by the very people who caused it?



We are well and truly meeped

I was just going to let this blog die a peaceful death but I can't let a recent gem from Andrew Sullivan go by without notice.

In this post, he is commenting on some gibberish from Kevin Drum, who doesn't like the Libyan invasion (but still trusts Obama because he, Kevin, realizes that Obama is obviously smarter than him), Andrew says,

This sums up my position exactly as well. I have criticized what I regard as a foolish decision because I support this president and passionately want him to succeed.... But whenever he meep meeps me, I don't feel humiliation. Just relief. I remain of the view that we are damn lucky to have him at this fraught moment in history, and that his decisions often look better in the rear-view mirror. 

I don't understand how after Andrew's bitter disappointment in Obama over the last few days, he would still say that we're not just lucky, but damn lucky to have him.

I was never sure exactly what "meep meep" meant but now Andrew has cleared that up for me. Thanks, Andrew!

Meep meep!

Gadsden Flag Redesign

Yay! Professor Althouse posted my versions here!


"It's For the Children" is, in my opinion, one of the most nefarious phrases ever invented, the rallying cry of power-mad statists everywhere.

"Shovel-Ready" kind of speaks for itself.

No Reason To "Withdraw the Claim"

Andrew Sullivan throws down the gauntlet this week, challenging Megan McArdle to provide evidence that Jared Loughner could have been influenced just as easily by Andrew's own writings as by those of the "right," including of course that nefarious person, Sarah Palin.

This post may be a little hard to follow at times due to the he-said/she-said nature of the narrative. For the record, I don't think Loughner was influenced by anyone except the voices in his head. His worldview was so bizarre that there is really no consistency in it whatsoever, and to label it as "left" or "right" is an exercise in futility. I went through some of his material posted on Above Top Secret and it makes no sense at all.


Andrew: "Megan takes issue with this post on Loughner:"

Megan: "Andrew's defense seems to be that there are a lot of right wing jerks out there, and that by combing Loughner's writing, he can find a few sentences here and there that sort of sound like things that might have been said by one of those right wing jerks. But I'm pretty sure that if I combed Loughner's writing, I could find some sentences here and there that imply that Loughner read Andrew's writing, or gay rights literature, or Edmund Burke."

Andrew: "Really? Go ahead. Make my day. Or withdraw the claim."

(The "this post" that Andrew is referring to is this one:

Andrew: "So far, the paranoia and conspiracy theories dominate - but they also dominate the atmosphere of the far right. And when a mentally ill young man complains of the "Broken United States Constitution", or regards legal tender as illegitimate “I did not pay with gold and silver!”, some of this nuttiness has penetrated. It didn't come from nowhere. And the critical point from the very beginning was not that Loughner was some kind of trained militia member killing a foe, but a mentally unstable person who, because he is mentally unstable, might be susceptible to extreme rhetoric from authority figures.")


One of Loughner's favorite books: "Gulliver's Travels"

The crazed internet rantings of Jared Loughner

Andrew: Gulliver in Afghanistan

Gulliver in Afghanistan


Loughner: too many incoherent rantings about "currency" and/or "gold & silver" to need citation

Andrew's endorsement of Ron Paul, an advocate of a return to the "gold standard"

Go Ron Paul!


Loughner: "Therefore, Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949."

Jared Loughner's Anti-War Views

Andrew: "It [the Iraq war] was, in many ways, a crime."

Shrugging at Torture


I see no reason for McArdle to withdraw her claim.

Andrew Refudiates Himself

This week, among the many wondrous, logic-free emanations from the towering intellect that is Andrew Sullivan, we find this post:

How Many Likudniks Can You Quote In One Article?

Amusingly, the post contains the following two phrases:

There is not a single quote from a single Palestinian in the entire piece

There is one - count it, one - quote from the Palestinians

I guess the Atlantic's blog software does not include a "preview" function, or else Andrew just doesn't read what he writes before posting it.

Why Willow Palin Might Be "Homophobic" - Exhibit A

This week Andrew Sullivan goes after 16-year-old Willow Palin, who had the audacity to call someone a "faggot" on Facebook.

Take a moment to digest the earth-shattering news that teenagers call each other "faggots." OH THE HUMANITY!

Have you collected yourself now? Ready to read on? While I don't condone the use of "gay" or "faggot" as casual insults, it is unfortunately very common. Andrew, however, suggests that young Willow, by the use of these terms, might cause young homosexuals to commit suicide.

Seriously? When Christopher Hitchens called Andrew a "lesbian" on national TV, I don't recall him suggesting that this would motivate young lesbians to kill themselves; rather he suggested that some people need to get a sense of humor.

Also, I seem to recall Obama denigrating his bowling performance as worthy of the "Special Olympics," and Rahm Emanuel's use of "retarded" as a pejorative, but Andrew's concern apparently does not extend to the possibility of suicidal ideation in the cognitively impaired.

May I suggest that Andrew needs to get a grip? For an adult Harvard graduate to attack a sixteen-year-old girl in this way is truly demented, no matter who the girl's mother is.

If Willow Palin is "homophobic" it is surely the result of encounters with people like Andrew Sullivan. Who wouldn't be afraid of someone that behaves this way?

Irony, thy name is Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan illustrates his oblivousness and complete lack of self-awareness this week, with a post entitled "Bush And The Right: The Dysfunctional Slobber". Yes, he actually accused someone else of "slobbering" over a political figure.

Bush And The Right: The Dysfunctional Slobber

"The interview encapsulates the conservative incoherence of the past ten years. Their partisanship made them - for the most part - blind to Bush's attack on real conservatism in his presidency. The fiscal catastrophe, the "deficits-don't-matter" lunacy, the off-budget nation-building endless wars, the budget-busting Medicare entitlement, the executive power supremacy, the descent into war crimes: all of this violated core conservative principles, and, even now, the alleged guardian of such principles, Rush Limbaugh, slobbers pathetically in front of a president he should have been debunking from the get-go."

Now I don't really disagree with all the points Andrew makes about Bush, but this is coming from a man who repeatedly informs us that Obama is the right man for our time, that we are lucky to have him, that he uses "political jiujitsu" on his insane "Christianist" opponents, that Obama should cause us to "Know Hope." Speaking of "slobbering pathetically," Andrew,

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/last-nights-pre.html

"He gets the mood. And seriously: he's obviously up to the job. That was as competent a presser as I've seen in my years covering politics, and light years better than his predecessor's.
...
I said it in the campaign and I'll say it again. He has flaws; he deserves pushback; he needs criticism. But we're lucky to have him right now, in my fallible judgment. Extremely lucky."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/your-toryism-is-showing.html

"My belief in 2008 was that Obama represented the best practical way forward. And although I'm going to criticize him when warranted, I stand by that 1000 percent. We're lucky to have him. "

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/sorry-no-detail.html

"As I've said repeatedly for the last two years, we're lucky to have him."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7069622.ece

"Imagine the narrative shift if this bill is passed. Obama will not have imposed this monstrosity on the country from on high; he will have ground it through the bloggers, and the pundits will declare a resurrection. The narrative will be about his persistence and his grit, rather than his near-divinity and his authority. And suddenly it will appear — lo! — as if this lone figure has not just rescued the US economy from the abyss, but also passed the biggest piece of social legislation in decades.

There is only one story better than Icarus falling to earth; and it’s Icarus getting back up and putting on some shades. The media will fall for it. The public will merely notice that the guy can come back and fight. Even when they don’t always agree with such a figure on the issues, they can admire him."

(Snicker)

Andrew Sullivan's Hypocrisy (again)

Once again we explore the subject of Andrew Sullivan's double standards. This time the subject is conservative attacks on the Ivy League. He quotes Jonah Goldberg trying to explain why conservatives distrust political figures with elite educations. I would summarize Jonah as saying that conservatives do not resent high-end educational achievement in itself, but the mindset which too often accompanies it, of "I know more than you about what you what should do, and what I know should be encoded in the laws by which you are governed."


On this blog I have previously examined Andrew's views on Ivy League education, in a post questioning whether he is a misogynist. His own opinions vary widely depending on the person in question. For David Cameron, elite educational background is good. For Elena Kagan, it is bad, or at least not a positive attribute. In his most recent post, quoted from David Frum and linked above, it seems to be good again, as "they [conservatives] only mean to indict such members as disagree with them." I think that accurately sums up Andrew's position as well, except that his "indictments" seem also to be based in gender.

Halloween cards, or something wicked this way shuffles...

I see that I have been neglecting my pitiful blog again. Well, just in time for Halloween (since I probably won't post again before that), here is a picture of some of the cards I made yesterday. Scary! But I won't frighten you with tales of even scarier things...

9/11 and the Truman Show

Nine years on, it is still hard to describe the effect that September 11 had on me.

The only analogy that comes close is "The Truman Show", a movie where the main character grew up believing that he was leading a normal life, only to find out that his whole world was constructed as the set of a reality television show. I think that when he discovered the truth, it must have been similar to how I felt on that day.

It was as if my life up to that point had been a pleasant illusion, where crazy people in distant lands went around screaming "Death to America," but never really did anything about it, because our government was strong and could keep us safe.

The thing that was most shocking for me was that the people who died in the World Trade Center were mostly just drones like me, sitting in cubicles, checking their email, doing and thinking the same kinds of things that I did every day. In an instant everything was transformed for them into a world of fire and death.

I naively thought that our government would avenge their deaths, that we would quickly find and destroy our enemies. All too soon, I realized that September 11 was just another "crisis" that could not be allowed to go to waste, that petty party allegiances were far more important to our "representatives" than uniting as one behind this life-or-death mission. The legitimate goals of our military were subordinated to a twisted political correctness and a "battle for hearts and minds."

"Islam is a religion of peace," we were told repeatedly, until it became a running joke. After every subsequent security breach, we were assured that there was no indication that the perpetrators were motivated by Islamic beliefs. Surrounded as we were by images of barbarism, of so-called moderate Muslims dancing in the streets to celebrate our misfortune, I came to despise the mealy-mouthed posturing of our leaders and the media, and to distrust them entirely. Sadly, nothing since has served to change my new opinion of reality.

Sometimes I think I just want my world back the way it was. I don't know if I am better off for discovering the truth. I love my country but I fear what the future holds for me and my children.

If Andrew Sullivan Wants To Do It, It Must Not Be A Sin, Ctd.

It's time for another episode in the long-running series, "If Andrew Sullivan wants to do it, it must not be a sin!"

Andrew's latest examination of quaint, outdated, restrictive Christianist beliefs delves into the question of monogamy.

Yes, that's right, even though he is now married, he seeks to justify the promiscuous lifestyle he desires. Perhaps in restrospect, all those Christianists weren't so silly, thinking that "marriage equality" might pose a threat to traditional mores.

The jist of his argument is that there is no evolutionary basis for monogamy. Might there be other behaviors whose prohibition would appear to have no evolutionary basis? For instance, if I am starving, would it not benefit me to kill and eat my neighbor? If someone else's property would make me happy, should I not steal it and then lie about the theft? If I am able to control another person, why should I not force him to labor for me, to preserve my own energy? Since children are generally free of disease, shouldn't I have sex with them instead of other adults?

Whether or not you are an adherent of any religion, all of these seem abhorrent and disturbing. The notion that because monogamy is "unnatural", it is to be disdained, is equally so.

The foundations of modern-day civilization are based on an ethic of striving for moral purity, whatever its origins. To undermine the value of such an ethic is to invite the destruction of society as we know it.

I suppose one could argue that it's only sex, and if Andrew's husband is OK with an "open relationship," it is none of my business. I just wish that he would refrain from propagating his novel philosophies on his website, where many unhappy spouses will undoubtedly grasp them as an excuse to justify their own infidelity.

Edit: a commenter has requested links to the relevant Sullivan posts, this one contains links to several of them.

The Odd Lies of Andrew Sullivan, Ctd.

Alert the media!  Mercede Johnston (Levi Johnston's sister) has a new blog! Levi, you will recall, is the baby-daddy of Tripp, the infant son of Bristol Palin. Andrew Sullivan, naturally, has gone over every post with a fine-tooth comb, looking for confirmation of his interesting theories of Trig's parentage.

So far, no success. But he did find this! Independent confirmation that Sarah Palin called her son a retard!

Except, there is no "independent confirmation" of anything except that Mercede says that Levi says that Sarah Palin said that. In other words, she said, he said, she said. I sent an email to Andrew:

I realize that you take every opportunity to criticize Sarah Palin, but what you have said in this post is just not true:

"So we now have independent confirmation that Palin, ... referred to her own Down Syndrome son - literally - as "retarded" in front of him at home."

I agree that the kerfuffle over Rahm Emanuel's use of the word was stupid and unnecessary, although I very much dislike the use of "retard", "retarded", or "short bus" as an insult, since these are descriptive of a disabling medical condition, like "crip" or "spaz".

However, "independent confirmation" would imply that Mercede herself heard Palin call Trig "retarded" (which in itself is not inappropriate, my 24-year-old son is also retarded and I describe him that way to strangers so that they will have an idea how they can interact and converse with him when they meet him for the first time).

What Mercede said in her blog post was, AS YOU DIRECTLY QUOTED, "No I have not personally heard her use that term, but I do remember my brother twice coming home and telling me about it." So what you have is "independent confirmation" that Levi said that Sarah used the term, and nothing more. Whether you believe Levi is a reliable source or not is irrelevant. The assertion by Mercede that her brother said it does not rise to the level of "independent confirmation" by Mercede (whose reliability as a source, as someone also hostile to Palin, could also be questioned).

I have given you somewhat of a pass on Palin coverage, as some of your fears seem justified, but I really think you should update this post to remove the phrase "independent confirmation." It is false and unfair as originally posted.

I am eagerly awaiting Andrew's retraction, as we all know that he is a scrupulously fair "journalist" in matters related to Sarah Palin.

Bunnies

We have a cat that we adopted as a young kitten from a farm family with which we are acquainted. He was neutered at about four months of age but never adapted well to being an indoor cat. In spite of being neutered he was always urinating on our belongings and trying to get outside. We finally gave up & let him go out whenever he wants. He will probably be killed by a car eventually but better a shortened, happy life than a miserable, confined life of resentment towards us for restricting his freedom.

Anyway, he has become a mighty hunter in the course of his outdoor sojourns. He will frequently bring a dead bird or mouse and leave it on our back steps as sort of a gift to us. This would be fine and we would appreciate it in the spirit in which it was intended, except for the fact that we let our dogs out the back door every morning. If Mr. Toto has left a gift it is inevitably brought inside by one of the dogs. I can usually tell by their furtive countenance upon reentering the house, but my husband is not always so attentive to their moods. Once in the house, Toto's gift will be shared between the members of our little menagerie for recreational purposes until one of the fun-killing humans discovers it and throws it in the trash.

Recently Mr. Toto has taken to killing baby bunnies. He also seems to enjoy eviscerating them. It is a macabre business indeed to pry the still-warm and bloody corpse of what was once a cute and fluffy baby rabbit from the jaws of our canine friends. At one time I would have been mortified by even the thought of this, but apparently I have become rather hardened. At this time my only goal is to prevent fur and blood from getting on the carpets. I do feel rather sad about the killings but our neighborhood has an abundance of fertile Leporidae, so I doubt they will be missed.

Is Andrew Sullivan a Misogynist?

As my readers know, I am a faithful reader of Andrew Sullivan. Not because I agree with him, mind you, but because I am fascinated with the mental gyrations he undertakes to justify his somewhat flexible positions.

Sullivan is notorious for his conspiracy theories about the birth of Trig Palin. He has now gained additional notoriety for his insistence that Elena Kagan publicly declare her sexual preference (or "emotional orientation" as he now describes it).

To use one of Sullivan's favorite phrases, "in my view," Andrew is highly suspicious of powerful, authoritative women. I can't understand what else would motivate his dislike of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and now Elena Kagan. I do, however, expect his view of Kagan will evolve into affection and admiration once it becomes clear that Obama (who can do no wrong Link) fully supports her.

To illustrate my "view", I here provide examples of Andrew's double standard concerning women, education, and elitism.
This post of his included the notorious "softball" picture of Kagan: Link.

"... where has she experienced the brunt of the law on ordinary people, as the president has described one of his criteria for the court? I guess if you regard Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree as victims of the world, you could make a case for her empathy. But apart from that? Not much that I can see.

Where is the struggle in her life story...? The NYT is very keen to let us know that the Upper West Side where she grew up was not as tony as it is today. Er, that's about it. ... Not a single anecdote in her life-story would be out of place in a Rhodes Scholar application - and I mean that as damning."

On the other hand, here is a post of his commenting on David Cameron, the newly elected UK prime minister: Link

"And here is where he reminds me a little of Obama. Class in Britain is what race is in America. Cameron never denied his past and even engaged in some of its more obnoxious practices. But he loves his country, and endured great prejudice, as well as great privilege, because of his class. Yes, Etonians can be victims too. He both owned his identity - all of it - and yet sought to transcend it."

I notice a bit of a difference there in his views; what could possibly account for that?

And here, he comments on Sarah Palin's educational background: Link

"Memo to Kristol: you may think Palin is sophisticated enough to grasp the high-level fantasies and abstractions that you have devised in your own head to defend the indefensible. But she isn't, buddy. She has a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho, and went to several colleges in several years. She thinks Leo Strauss is a brand of jeans. She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. Remember: she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and heard about the surge 'on the news'.

This is your lipsticked pitbull, buddy. Own it. And all the immense incuriosity, minimal education, and fact-resistant ambition that comes with it." 

How can we explain Andrew Sullivan's diverse opinions on "elitism", class, and educational background? I leave this as an open question for the reader to contemplate.

Here is a picture of Andrew Sullivan arranging flowers. Because "in my view," all men who arrange flowers are gay, and all men who are gay arrange flowers - just as Andrew seems to believe that all women who play softball are lesbians, and all women who are lesbians play softball. Not that Andrew or I believe in stereotyping homosexuals or anything.

Where's that rope again?

Ticks

In the Midwest, ticks can be a problem for dog owners during the months from April until late October. They are disgusting little creatures which fasten themselves to your dog, and then feed on its blood until they become so bloated they can no longer hold on. At that point they fall off, and drag their nasty, swollen bodies across the floor until you find them or they are able to hide under your furniture.

The current state of the federal government reminds me of a giant tick. A tick does not have the goal of killing its host, but a large tick on a small animal can cause severe damage due to its consumption of the host's very life-blood. In such a way our government is now sucking the life-blood out of our nation's economy, as in my illustration:

New insight from Andrew Sullivan

Today Andrew Sullivan employs the title, "Sacrificing Freedom to Gain More" with a link to a post by Hilary Bok Enhancing Freedom By Government Regulations.

The gist of her argument is that the safety and security afforded us by governmental control of certain areas of our lives increases our "freedom" despite its restriction of personal choice. Her example is traffic laws, which serve to make our collective driving experience safer and easier.

Disregarding the Orwellian notion that restrictions make us freer, the "traffic laws" example is most unfortunate, considering recent studies of the elimination of traffic regulations in certain areas. See this article, for example:

Link to article

Andrew Sullivan's leftward slide is not news to anyone who reads him regularly, but his latest epiphany that governmental restrictions increase liberty is, to put it kindly, "eccentric".

I view governmental mandates and intrusion into my personal health decisions somewhat differently.

As Samuel Adams once said, "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Crouch down, Andrew, and lick the hand that grants you the "right" to purchase health insurance, which, should you choose not to exercise it, will earn you a penalty from the IRS. Thankfully Andrew is not yet one of our countrymen, lest we should have to disown him and his refreshing new notions of "liberty".

The Bad Thing

I believe that every person has a "bad thing" that they hide from the rest of the world, something so awful that their own mother would hate them, if they were to reveal it.

I claim ownership of many "bad things" although I would rather not confess them here.

Whether your "bad thing" be sexual acts or thoughts, gambling, drug or alcohol abuse, racism, dishonesty, or any other sin, God assures us that the grace attributed to us through faith in Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sufficient for our atonement.

We are also told that even without the "bad things" in our lives, our righteous works are sorely lacking. Only grace can cover our sin - our good works are "filthy rags" in God's eyes.

If today you are afraid of death, I present here an easy solution. Receiving God's grace and forgiveness does not require you to stop sinning, for we as human beings are incapable of that, and our Creator is fully aware of our sinful nature. You and I need only to confess our helplessness in the face of temptation, and acknowledge before God that we accept Jesus' suffering as atonement for our sin.

I hope that my readers have a blessed Easter and spend a few moments contemplating the rolling away of the stone from the tomb where he was laid, and the rending of the curtain in the Temple separating worshipers from the Holy of Holies.

2010 Easter Art

Here is my Easter art for this year. There is a fuzzy yellow ducky with a pink basket full of colored eggs, standing in front the silhouette of a cross, framed by a dramatic sunet scene (a picture I took at "our" lake a few years ago, where the sunsets were often epic).

The ducky represents the lack of religion or the lightweight religiosity of the usual observance of Easter in the modern world. He is captured by the vision of the cross, which gives Easter its true meaning to believers in Christ.

If you are a non-believer, please take a minute to contemplate the meaning of the cross. Jesus surrendered himself voluntarily to its suffering and did not ask God to spare him. He experienced death as separation from God, a profound spiritual agony that we cannot begin to comprehend. And he did it for each one of us weak and fallible human beings who would follow in his footsteps, in order to grant us freedom from death and condemnation.

Thank you Lord, for sending your Son to endure this sacrifice in my place.

Tired of winter

Today is the first day of Spring but our local temperature is in the 20's.

Yesterday it was cloudy all day and it snowed for several hours :-(

I am only 48 but I am developing a strong aversion to cold weather. My best friend is in her 60's and she is always asking me when we are going "cold camping" again. I am thinking my answer will be "Never" even though we camped out a few years ago when it was five below zero. That may eventually be worthy of another blog-post but I don't have time to describe the specific miseries here.

I like to think of myself as a serious outdoors-person so I have clothing and gear appropriate for almost any conditions. My slogan was, "There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes." At one time I was an obsessive gear-head with much more disposable income than I have now, so my wardrobe comprises such items as Patagonia heavy weight fleece pants, Primaloft insulated long underwear, boots rated at 65 below zero, and battery-powered socks. I just can't summon the energy to find and put on all of these layers for anything more strenuous than lying on the couch in front of the TV.

Anyhoo, today seems like one of those days where couch-lying is indicated. Here is a picture of our lovely spring weather.