Artdog and Catman in 20 years

My wife was watching this video (she finds the oddest things online) and commented that this could be Artdog and Catman in 20 years.  The drummer's expression at the beginning especially reminded her of Artdog. 

In fact, she just about fell off the futon laughing at the idea.

It is time for all odd wives to go to bed now.

Enjoy!

Sotomayor is only for some Amendments, can you guess which one she doesn't like?

Here is a link to a story about the potential next Supreme Court Justice appointed by Obama.

Basically, Sotomayor says that the states get to choose whether or not to follow the Second Amendment.  She bases her decision on a poor interpretation of a previous decision back in the 1800's (read the story if you want to know more). So I wonder what other rights the states get to choose to allow citizens to have?

• Does she think that the states can choose to get rid of the right of trial by jury?
  
• Since the newspapers are dying, do we still need a freedom of the press? Outdated if you ask me.  
  
• Maybe the 13th amendment, you know the one outlawing slavery, is actually a state decision.  Then white people could be enslaved as well, making the world a much more fair place to people like Sotomayor.
  
• How about poll taxes?  Can some states charge to vote?  Then only rich elites could vote. That sounds like a good state right.

Would the states choosing rights extend beyond the amendments? Could the states also have fun with other parts of the Constitution such as Article IV? Maybe people can begin to flee from one state to another when committing crimes?  Instead of a city of refuge we could have entire states! This could be a way for states to get people to move in and increase tax revenue.

So, what silly extra part of the Constitution do you want to give to the states?  I think Sotomayor should be a verb to describe the action of taking a section of the Constitution of the US and giving it over to the states.  

With that in mind, what part of the Constitution do you want to sotomayor (extra credit for which state as well and why)?  

Rant

Ok I need to rant.  If you do not care for what I have to say, then don't read.  Usually I provide links to articles, in case you want to read what I have read and comment on my interpretations and to help provide sources.  Today, no links. I just need to complain.

With that said, let me now comment on the pathetic condition of the Church in America as shown by Miss California, Carrie Prejean.  Her claim to fame seems to be that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and she said so during the Miss America competition. The question was a loaded question, asked by a homosexual that was pushing his agenda.  And she did a good job responding to the question.  And she did not win the competition.  That should be the end of the story.  But it wasn't. Far from it.

Miss Prejean soon became, rather quickly, a symbol and a martyr for the evangelical movement (she has said she is an evangelical Christian) to help fight the homosexual push to change the laws regarding marriage.  Here is an attractive, succesful woman and she is a Christian.  Hooray! Suddennly we had someone on our side that had all the right markings to be a success in the world and make Christianity look better, more marketable and attractive.  But often when we try to make things marketable, you can lose much of the instrinsic worth that made the item worth marketing in the first place.  

Take Miss Prejean.  We are to hold her as a role model for all of us, at least that is what I am hearing so much from various sources, Christian and wordly (though all conservative).  Yet, here is a young lady that has had plastic surgery to enhance her looks to win a beauty pagent and posed nude.  Yeah, great role model.  Just how I hope my daughters grow up to be.  An organization called National Organization for Women has picked her to be a spokesperson.  Not sure who they are but I am guessing I won't be supporting them.  

I live in a free country.  All of what she has done is legal.  All that has been done to her is legal. The question asked of her was loaded, but life is not always fair. We have the right to free speech in this country, but that right allows others to disagree with us.  Ok, so I have no problems here.

I just don't see how, as a Christian with a capital C, one can defend her actions. Morally, ethically, theologically, philosophically, and just plain common sense says that if you belive that the Bible is the living Word you try to live by it.  That does not mean you have to be perfect.  That does not mean you can't make mistakes and sin (Let the one with no sin throw the first stone), but choosing actions that directly go against the Bible just ain't right.  It is no different than two "christian" men living together in "marriage".  Both are living "christian" lives, yet living a life that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Bible, which is what God said.  Am I way off base here?  

The reason I am ranting and dragging the Church into this is that I have not heard condemnation from the Church regarding this.  It is probably out there, and I am sure some have spoken.  But should I have to go searching for it, looking to find out that Miss Prejean aint the Proverbs 31 women that DC talk was singing about.  

Sorry, I know that I said no links but I needed to include something to lighten the mood for a second.

Maybe I am missing something.  Maybe our scripture has changed and nudity is now acceptable if one is a model, since models do not need to be concerned with passages regarding modesty. Maybe implants are now scriptural, for it does say in Psalm 23 my cup runneth over. Maybe I am just an old fashioned guy that needs to get with the times.  

Or maybe the Church is the proverbial frog in the water, and the water is starting to boil.

Ugh.  I need to go listen to FIF now.