7.2.07 @ 12:01AM
IN THE NAME OF NAMEOLOGY
Re: Paul Beston’s Branding Up Baby:
Paul Beston is one of my favorite TAS writers because he finds the absurdities in small familiar things that matter. And names do matter.
My Greatest Generation parents would no more have asked for help in naming their eight children than they would have in conceiving them. They stuck to the conventional methods of the time, plucking most of our first and middle names from the family tree and selecting from the popular names of post-war period. To this day, neither however, has any remembrance of the origin of my unusually spelled name. I dread doctor’s waiting rooms where the nurse invariably calls for DEE-ANNE and I have to stand up. For some reason, my own wife likes to call me that, too. I’m very sensitive to names.
I believe Mr. Beston’s point was that today’s parents view the process of naming their own child as an act of marketing, with predictably insane results. Saddling an innocent child with a trendy, goofy name seems an act of extreme cruelty and probably makes school roll call a nightmare. The solid Tommies, Johnnies and Billies of my day have given way to the Dylans, Calebs, and Trevors of today. Not to mention the Lexus’, Mignons and faux-Islamic names that abound.
While probably not outsourced, a very good college basketball
player from Oklahoma appeared in the NCAA tournament burdened with
the name Jihad Muhammad. What were his parents thinking? Not a name
that would look real good on a political banner anytime soon. I
wish him luck.
— Deane Fish
Altamont, New York
I just read the article “Branding up Baby.” I just thought I’d share my son’s name with you: Zhyen Qaid Qrys.
When I was pregnant with him, we watched a history documentary on Genghis Kahn. During that documentary, it was mentioned that he was born Temuujin. Unfortunately, the person typing for the closed captioning spelled it Timozhyen. We were going to use Timozhyen and call him Tim, but decided on just Zhyen. It wasn’t until after he was born we learned it was spelled incorrectly. My sister came up with Qaid. I love the name and the initials. Qrys means “gold/golden.”
My son will soon be 12. He is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed boy.
Just thought I’d share.
— Julie Qrys (pronounced kris)
Re: Paul Beston’s “Branding Up Baby,” it occurs to me that parents are naming their babies what they used to name their German Shepherds — Dakota, Shiloh. Cherokee.
A few years back when we were awash in Brittanys — spelled every conceivable way and Tiffany, Tif’ni, Tifani, upon encountering a grandmother referring to her granddaughter, I was sorely tempted to ask, “Would that be for the Spaniel or the province in France?” or “For the lamp or jewelry store?”
Unusual names are nothing new. I once knew a girl named Mavontine Brakebill and a boy named Noble Self. Also knew a boy named Sergeant Major. His father admired Marines. I wondered if the boy enlisted, would he be Private Sergeant Major and as he rose in the ranks finally be Sergeant Major Sergeant Major? I think his dad pretty well ruled out a career as a leatherneck when he named him. Imagine Lt. Colonel Sergeant Major!
George Foreman had the right idea — named all his children,
male and female, George.
— Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California
As a publisher of a baby names information website, and one that does not charge visitors to use our name lists and articles, I agree with much of what Mr. Beston wrote. But I think the point needs to be made that parents who shell out money on “name consultants” or who “Google” names before choosing one are in a tiny minority.
In a blog post I wrote on June 22, I said, “I have to wonder whether all this reported stress and angst about what to name baby is a bit overstated. After all, the top 100 baby names for 2006 showed that the top ten names for boys and girls barely changed a smidgen over 2005, and the top three in each gender, Jacob, Michael, Joshua, and Emily, Emma, Madison, remained identical to 2005.”
Eight of the top ten boy’s names from 2006 are biblical in origin. For girls, it is two out of ten, but girls’ names are less common in the bible.
We have been running a poll on our blog for a few days, asking
if readers would pay $475 to a nameologist. One respondent checked
“maybe,” one “probably not,” and twenty-five checked “not in a
— Neil Street
Baby Names Garden
My position on that in a nutshell: idiots with too much money and
time on their hands.
— Daniel A. Moroco Jr.
Colonel, USMCR (Ret.)
PASS THE AMMUNITION
Re: Lawrence Henry’s Praise Music Flunks:
Thank you for a good article on praise music. You will be pleased to know that we are a Reformed Baptist church (very conservative, evangelical, and consciously Protestant) which is resisting the pressure to abandon our historic hymn book (The Trinity Hymnal) for praise music, even if we must suffer a smaller congregation as a result.
Yours in the gospel,
— D. Scott Meadows, Pastor
I LOVED this column. You’ll be happy to know that the tiny Five Islands Baptist Church in Georgetown, Maine, (1) Takes excellent care of the faith once delivered to the saints, (2) has never let Praise & Worship music get a toe in the door.
We’ve always been of the opinion that the grand old Reformation hymns, the “Third Great Awakening” hymns, Southern gospel, spirituals, folk hymns, “praised and worshiped” God just fine.
The great music literature of the church is the “so great a cloud of witnesses” surrounding us, and nothing in my long life has shocked and pained me more than the willingness of so many churches to exchange power and glory for noisy illiterate banalities .
— Hilda Hardcastle
I should be content to let others respond to Lawrence Henry’s
recent article “Praise Music Flunks,” but two thoughts spring to
mind. First, and Mr. Henry dances around this, is that his love for
hymns is largely a form of elitist snobbery. As a former cleric, it
is this same elitist snobbery, reinforced by an elitist clergy,
which comes in so many forms, including worship snobbery, that is
causing the slow death of so many churches. Praise music allows
newcomers and long time Christians alike to connect emotionally
through worship with their Savior. Personally, even though I have a
love of organ, good hymns, plain song and high liturgy, I also love
the emotional energy of a well-executed praise service. Over time
the best hymns stick around while others fall away, and I am sure
that it will be the same a hundred years from now in terms of
praise music. And for that matter, the past was not free from mushy
sentimentality. I wish Mr. Henry had cited and old favorite of
many, “Going to the Garden.” Perhaps then his dim view of praise
music, much of which does a much better job of putting scripture to
music than does 18th and 19th century hymns, might change. And for
that matter worship is more about what one’s heart, mind, one’s
being is doing before God, am I actually “worshiping,” than it is
about what music is being played. The worship service is more about
“am I worshiping God?” or “am I hearing what God is saying?” than
“do I like the music?” or “was the preacher good?” It seems that
when Mr. Henry is going to church it is still all about him and the
music he likes.
— Steve Baarda
Why must it be an either/or? Do you really think that the only acceptable praise in God’s eyes are ancient hymns? C’mon, you know better. I love hymns, in fact my favorite stanza of all time is the third verse of “It Is Well With My Soul.” Yet I attend a church whose worship is almost exclusively hard (and I do mean “hard”) rock. Why? Because many (not all) of the songs have theological depth and the style enables me to better worship the Lord.
Dennis Jernigan is an excellent example of a radically changed life. As a student at Oklahoma Baptist University, he was completely immersed in the homosexual lifestyle. Hopelessly so. Yet, at a 2nd Chapter of Acts concert (2nd Chapter of Acts was one of the greatest contemporary Christian groups of all time who, BTW, have several albums of traditional hymns), his life was transformed by the ever transforming power of a relationship with Jesus Christ.
He now has a very large body of music — all dedicated to praising the Savior who literally saved him. He’s also happily married with 9 (count ‘em) 9 children.
So before you dis praise music too much, you might want to consider that it was never meant to replace hymns. Nor should hymns “replace” praise music. I’d be very careful, however, to so quickly judge how the Holy Spirit can use the lyrics of a song like “You are my all in all.” If it’s not your style, don’t sing it. If you’re in a church service where the song is being sung — withhold your praise to God because the song doesn’t quite meet your standards. As you criticize in your heart the fact that the church isn’t singing an ancient hymn, refuse to sing “Jesus, Lamb of God, worthy is Your name.” Think to yourself how meaningless the words, “You are my all in all” are. Of course, others in the service will be partaking in the essence of worship: committing themselves afresh to a total surrender of their lives to their Savior as they glorify Him.
It’s your choice.
— Gary Brown
A brilliant article. May I add a bit of a rant?
I attend a Canadian Catholic Church in Calgary. The music we are asked to sing is horrible; it is beyond horrible. It is composed by idiots, fools and charlatans. The words are insane. The combination of words and music is a whiny, sniveling, downbeat, defeatist, ugly dirge.
I honestly believe the music is intentionally Marxist, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. Perhaps I am over the top. My wife claims to like some of it. Perhaps it just comes from the over feminization of the church along with everything else and the pendulum will swing back.
The hymnal has very few of the great hymns or the works of the great composers.
And thank you America, this trash comes from the USA, the Oregon Catholic Press. Their composers are talentless bums, hacks of the lowest order. If they wrote a musical it would flop in the sticks. Take a look at their web-site ‘featured composers’ page at http://www.ocp.org/artists An example: “Grayson Warren Brown — Known for his passionate preaching style and his songs, workshops and missions in defense of social justice.”
Who the bloody double blue blazes is bloody Grayson Warren
Brown, in comparison to Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and why should I have
to sing his relentlessly lousy commie music?
— Fred Z
I always enjoy Mr. Henry’s commentary, and “Praise Music Flunks” maintains that record. He has chosen a subject in this column with which I have struggled.
First, some clarifying information.
The praise song selected, “You Are My All In All” uses a phrase
from I Corinthians 15:27-29:
For he ‘has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
That said, I mostly agree with Mr. Henry. Much of modern praise music, but certainly not all and probably not even a majority, is of the “Jesus Is My Boyfriend” variety, a term I once heard a local Baptist minister use that I have not forgotten. Nevertheless, there is much of it that is deeply theological and pointing to the nature of God and truth of scripture. However, excessive devotion to our Saviour is a “problem” more of our churches could use. The difficulty is expressing devotion without taking from the message by our entertaining methods.
I am a church musician, a piano player and singer, not real good but not real bad either. A few years back, I felt that my small amount of talent was being wasted. God gave me the ability to play and it was my responsibility to use that talent to God’s glory. The church I was attending had a “praise and worship” song service just as Mr. Henry describes. Having grown up with hymns from the Broadman and Baptist hymnals, I did not like the new music or its methods: continuous flow, projected words, attachment to emotionalism and the need to produce the service. But, my calling was to serve, and my job was to play the piano not dictate the form and structure of the music for my congregation.
What I learned is what Mr. Henry has already learned, although he does not come out and say it directly. Many modern churchgoers do not have the foundation in knowledge of scripture to understand and appreciate the old hymns. They are often written in that old English style that has fallen out of favor and is not as easily understood by the modern listener. Furthermore, schools no longer teach appreciable amounts of music theory, and where at one time there were a significant number of folks in any congregation that could pick up a SATB hymnal and follow along, that is no longer the case. The simplified tunes and flow plays to this necessity. The projection of lyrics on the wall is a natural progression as the music notation is useless to most anyway. The simplified phrasing of praise songs lend itself to this projected format as well.
Where the song service of the past was used to reinforce the Word as presented by the teachers and preachers, the modern song service has become the time of testimony. People in the congregation seldom have opportunity or freedom to testify in a public forum about how God may be working in their lives. The praise and worship music format enables this necessary expression in a more anonymous format.
Many churches have tried blended worship, a mix of the old and new, some with success and some without. Many churches just gave up and have two services, traditional and contemporary. In many cases, all this accomplishes is separating the members of their own congregation into groups that never interact or even see each other.
Is there a good middle ground? Probably, but it may be difficult to achieve. First, we have to realize that efforts to bring people in using the entertainment value of the service implies that God’s word is no longer able to compel people to repentance and service. Do we still use community outreach? Of course. But when it comes to our worship service the time for marketing is over and the demonstration of our devotion to God and our willingness to learn His word is expressed. When the hymns or praise songs are selected with that in mind, not whether folks will be entertained, then we will achieve proper balance. Second, we must continuously use the opportunities for education. Let’s not just sing the hymn and songs, let’s teach the source of the hymns and how God worked in the lives of the writers. Let’s teach the specific parts of scripture that are referenced in the songs we sing. And, if these are just pretty songs that touch the heart and have no fundamental basis in scripture, let’s resolve to not use them as worship music.
The beauty of music, and the reason that it has been an integral
part of worship for centuries, is that is touches a different part
of our consciousness than spoken words or the things that we read.
Singing opens a bit the little box that we put ourselves in to both
shelter and protect us in our modern society. But it is just this
small opening that frees us to express our love and devotion to our
Saviour and to freely hear the new Word from God that we need to
strengthen or purify us.
— Joe Strader
Having been in music ministry for nearly 20 years, I am also very concerned about the lightweight legacy of the “praise chorus.” I enjoyed reading Lawrence Henry’s observations.
However, the slight problem with his analysis of the lyrics is that some of those “trite” phases are indeed biblical in origin, which is not mentioned. “All in all” — see 1 Cor 15:28 or Eph. 1:23. “Precious jewel” is reminiscent of the parables of Matt. 13:44-46. “Fall down” — Psalm 37:24, 118:13, 145:14. “Cup” surely refers to Psalm 23:5. Actually, on some level the entire lyric is thoroughly biblical, and therein is the problem: the poetry is cheap campfire quality even while attempting to represent some timeless scriptural truths. There is a paradox.
Interestingly, Henry’s astute criticisms also miss another important fact: among praise music, this is a relatively conservative and singable song, which tends to be true more often of 1990s choruses than current ones, which are edgier, harder, and more rhythmic. The fact that “You Are My All in All” is among the few popular choruses that are inherently melodic (not to mention a very clever use of “round” technique, which seems to have been forgotten in the years since) is also not mentioned. In other words, Mr. Henry could have actually painted the situation much worse!
This article encourages people to think about what they’re doing in worship. And that apparently needs to happen more — much more.
By the way, according to CCLI, “You Are My All in All” is presently the 14th-most sung praise chorus in the U.S.
— Bill Brandenstein
Sun Valley, California
I just read your fine article online on The American Spectator website. Thank you for having the courage to describe “the elephant in the living room”!!!
I attended a well-known and fairly large independent Bible church here in the San Jose/Palo Alto area for over 20 years and for many of those years, struggled with the whole idea of a “worship team” up on stage. It seemed like it verged on performance. There was always a lot of stand up/sit down and singing some worship songs, of the two sentence variety, that would put me to sleep after the 4th or 5th time!
I did have the privilege of going to Romania three times to teach Bible conferences over in the eastern Carpathian mountains and I did teach them some of my favorite worship songs, but more importantly, I learned how to sing their most profound worship hymns (in Romanian). Their worship songs consisted of books of worship poems — they didn’t know how to read music — set to music. It was a wonderful experience for me.
In defense of some contemporary worship songs I must say that there are a couple of early Twila Paris songs that stand out in my heart.
“We Will Glorify”
“For the Glory of the Lord”
Both have some complexity found in classical worship and have some depth to the lyrics. (Incidentally, I taught my Romanian friends “We Will Glorify” and it is now one of their favorite American songs.)
I too tended to show up late for church and also at annual Men’s Retreat worship sessions to avoid the so-called worship portion of the service! I also developed a severe dislike to the obligatory time where you were supposed to roam all over and “greet one another”!!
Lately I have just sort of faded out of going to church on Sunday mornings…
Thank you so much for writing the fine article!
— Roy W. Patterson
San Jose, California
Mr. Henry knows better, in fact in the next to last paragraph he states that “real alive Bible Churches” use the praise music to get people through their doors.
That’s why “real alive Bible Churches” are growing, why people
are having life-changing experiences. Praise music is more upbeat
and modern. With its wild beats and uplifting style of singing, it
entices the younger generation to attend church. That’s why, I as a
62 year old raised on the 16th and 17th century hymns, thoroughly
welcome the new contemporary Praise Music. It is evident that many
old mainline churches that are opening their doors weekly to empty
pews are playing to their audience, all the dead people from the
16th and 17th centuries.
— Lee Schafer
New Caney, Texas
Thanks be to Lawrence Henry for saying aloud what I’ve only had the courage to think for years. My wife and I have been “saved” for about 15 years now and praise the Lord for that, but being a lifelong fan of classical music and all things truly beautiful I’ve always found most “praise music” to be something less than inspiring. Short, repeated verses, clunky, corporate memo style or sugary-syrupy lyrics combined with too earnest efforts to wring every vibration of sentimental feeling out of them only serve to accentuate what thin gruel it really is. Lately, way too many songs use the word “unspeakable” in a positive sense, as in “unspeakable joy,” which is jarring to say the least, or invoke the image of “dancing” either with (Heaven forfend!) or for the Lord. The first seems so ridiculous it doesn’t bear comment, and, to paraphrase Woody Allen, I couldn’t believe in a God that wants to cut the rug with me. The latter, usually coming from a male vocalist, creates another uncomfortable mental picture for me, given what we, as beings, must seem like to the God of the universe. Every time I hear that goofy line I picture myself looking on as a small dog (a Chihuahua with a little hat, maybe?) dances on its hind legs, eminently pleased with itself for its cleverness. Another gripe of mine is too many of the tunes express far too much “I” and too little God, as in “I will give you ALL of my _______(fill in the blank),” which to my ears sounds awfully bold and willful to say to God for I can in no way hope to, and usually don’t, keep any such promise in an average day. He certainly knows better than I that my declaration really means I will forgo that which is not too much of a loss or inconvenience for me to forgo, which is one of the reasons I need Him so. Even the spirit is only mostly willing but the flesh is certainly weak, and the modern songs seem to have forgotten that. And that’s the major problem with a lot of “praise” music — it seems to be infected with the virus of self-esteem. Much of it seems designed to produce feelings of self-satisfied conviction in the singer rather than truly praise God, or seek his blessing or forgiveness, and, true to our times, the best way is to praise oneself for praising God. Kind of like the color “cause” bracelets people wear to supposedly “raise consciousness” on an issue but more usually serve to advertise their own nobility and generosity.
To further lay on the disappointment is the standard issue “praise team” director’s penchant for loading up the playlist with what I call “eye-squinters,” those slow tempo, girlish tunes played to the tock of the woodblock and especially designed to manufacture those feelings provided one ignores the silly or mendacious lyrics in his mouth and squints his eyes hard enough. When we first joined our present semi-rural church, the “praise team” had no paid leader but was an all volunteer band and chorus of talented members, particularly the lead guitarist who can play rhythm very well in a Claptonesque way. He can also play a terrific solo riff, but that’s a little too individualistic for a Southern Baptist outfit so we don’t hear them much. The guitarist was good at adapting the old great Gospel numbers to a livelier beat (not too lively, mind you) with powerful chords to produce a truly inspiring tune and so they played rousing, inspirational up-tempo songs that got the blood going, hands clapping, and a true joy of praising the Lord. The team was unself-conscious and pure in its motives. It was like a beautiful, wild animal in its prime that exuded the vigor of a blameless life and spirit. Then, they hired the usual semi-retired, former singer of a once, semi-famous gospel group who proceeded to kill it, stuff it and put it on the wall so that it was only a bloodless and bland shell of its former self. They got with the contemporary “praise team” program so that trite eye-squinters took over the playlist. He’s gone now but the team kept to his ways. It’s a crying shame, and if God loves good music I’m praying He will give our band some help.
Alas, in the end, I try to remember it’s all meant for His ears,
not me, and He is merciful so I guess my temporal
criticisms of them sound as off key and off target as some of the
numbers. I know my brethren mean well and given today’s cultural
literacy and style this might be all we can hope for. But if I had
my druthers I’d ban the woodblock and eye squinters forever.
— Mark Shepler
Thanks for another outstanding article in TAS. If you
would like to experience a classic, Reformed worship service
without the praise music, come visit us at Fairlawn
Christian Reformed Church in Whitinsville, MA.
You have pinpointed the problems and some of us are working to counter such vapid worship that is known in most “evangelical” churches. The CRC is rife with this and it is a rather lonely battle, but one worth waging. Keep up the good work.
— Raymond Coffey
As someone who sings in our church choir and has developed a deep
love for traditional music, I understand your comments. However,
our first mission is to get people through the door. If it takes
some less complicated music to speak to them initially so that we
get them into church and then to a greater appreciation of the more
traditional forms of worship music, I am all for that.
— Ron Kohl
AMEN, Brother Lawrence!
— Judy Beumler
(To be continued in tomorrow’s Reader Mail.)
PLESSY VS. BROWN
Re: Jennifer Rubin’s Color Blind Court:
Law Professor Lino Graglia, Austin, Texas, noted that in 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may use race to assign students to particular schools. And then in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may not use race to assign students to particular schools. And then in the 1970s, in a Boston school busing case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must use race to assign students to particular schools.
There were of course no relevant constitutional amendments from 1896 forward. And the authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 publicly and explicitly insisted that no racial quotas could ever be inferred from that act.
As Jennifer Rubin notes in her article, “Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion for the Court, holding that school districts in Seattle and Louisville may not assign children to particular schools on the basis of race.” So Rubin quite correctly places the Seattle/Louisville decision in accord with the 1954 court, not the 1896 or 1970s court. And one may reasonably infer that all the supporters of using race to “further diversity” are inarguably in accord with the 1896 court, its decision regarded today as the infamous “separate but equal” policy.
Regarding Rubin’s digression to kiss Rudy and smack Fred, could
Ms. Rubin kindly enlighten the reader as to any “strict
constructionist” judicial appointments that Hizzoner made while
Imperator of the City of New York? And if she cannot, let
me suggest that she would be in for a long, long wait for any such
action should Rudy move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
— Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey
How would Harriet Miers have voted?
— Paul Curley
AS TIME GOES BY
Re: Peter Hannaford’s Madame Rick:
Mr. Hannaford has now twice repeated an erroneous summary of the end of the movie Casablanca.
Rick’s choice is not to forego leaving with Ilsa, it is to send Ilsa away with her husband Victor, who has already boarded the plane.
Oh, and the actual final scene is between Rick and Captain Reynaud. That’s when Reynaud orders his men to “Round up the usual suspects!” He thereby joins Rick in the anti-fascist cause — a decision made explicit a moment later when he angrily flings an empty Vichy Water bottle into a wastebasket. Then he and Rick stroll off into the darkness while the Marseillaise swells up.
That nit aside, I loved the story of “Madame Rick.”
— Rich Rostrom
Re: Eric Peters’s Highway Robbery:
Over the years, many offenses have been given a “Hate Crime”-like boost (i.e., littering, speeding in construction zones) in fines with the hope that such Draconian penalties would cause the conduct to cease or, at least, lessen. The truth is that the law enforcement agencies that are mandated to enforce such laws, decide upon themselves that the fines are unjust, and therefore issue warnings or just fail to enforce. When was the last time you heard someone got a $500 ticket for littering?
Florida drivers know that they can speed throughout the state, but on “trips up north,” stay close to the posted speed limits in Georgia and Virginia. Those states are serious about writing tickets, if only on the Interstates.
There are plenty of laws on the book that are meant to make the
country, state or town a safer, cleaner place. They are just not
— Marcus Bressler
Re: Dick Grogan’s letter (under “Just Do It”) in Reader Mail’s It’s Too Late:
I got a kick out of Dick Grogan’s letter about how he continues to get fundraisers from Republican organizations, although he told them two years ago that he is no longer giving to them. Dick, prepare for many more years of this. I stopped giving to Republican organizations back in the '80s. The catalyst in my case was Republican unwillingness to uphold President Reagan’s veto of a budget-busting, pork-filled highway bill. Like Dick, I returned a fund raising form to them with a note expressing my unwillingness to ever again support party fund-raising, and that I would only support individuals dedicated to stopping the insane spending. Over the years, I have reminded them of my position, generally at their mailing expense. Alas, it has done no good. I continue to get all those special mailings where I can be one of a select few tens of millions to make my voice heard on the issues of the day. I have often wondered if those receiving responses even bother to record the “issues advice” as they process the checks. At least I continue to get my neat, embossed party membership card, although I am some 20 years delinquent in sending any membership dues!
These days, I funnel all my political contributions to
individuals endorsed by Club For Growth. Many of the leaders in the
House who are trying to take back the party for fiscally
responsible, low tax Republicans (as
opposed to the corrupt leadership Republicrats) are people to whom I contributed as they were getting their start. I have found, like the feminazis, that early money is like yeast (EMILY) and I figure that once they win their primaries and first elections, their status as incumbents will help them fund from there.
Any conservative or libertarian who sends one dime to a
Republican organization is shooting himself in the foot. While the
fund-raising materials may feature red meat Republicanism, some of
the money will go to the Voinovich’s and Lugar’s of the Country
Club wing, and to fighting real conservatives taking on
Republicrats in primaries.
— Stephen Zierak
Kansas City, Missouri
Sign up for our weekly newsletter:
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
By John Corry
By Mark Steyn
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
By Mark Steyn
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
By Brit Hume
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.
Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.