COMMENTARY | Sarah Palin stepped out of Paul Revere’s home in Boston and appeared to get her history wrong. The Internet then exploded in ridicule and astonishment at the ditz from Alaska once again uttering nonsense.
It started when Palin told a questioner, according to the Daily Caller, that Revere had had “warned the British” and not the colonials. The firestorm was instantaneous and viral. From staid organs of the mainstream media like the Los Angeles Times to the snarky left side of the Internet such as the Daily Kos, almost everyone arose in high dudgeon.
Except, albeit somewhat clumsily expressed, Palin was correct.
Professor William A. Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection notes the memoirs of Revere himself, as pointed out by the Conservatives4Palin site. In it, Revere recounts an incident during the famous Midnight Ride in which he was accosted by a British military patrol and was interrogated about what his business was on the road. Revere indicated to his British captors that he had warned the countryside of the approach of British troops up the Lexington-Concord road, matching pretty much what Palin said.
“He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above.”
So how was it that Palin got it right and just about everyone else got it wrong about Paul Revere and his famous ride? Most peoples’ knowledge about Revere begins and ends with the famous Longfellow poem, which somewhat fudged the actual history of the ride that night in 1775. Palin either has actually cracked open a book or, just as likely, was paying attention to the lecture visitors get when they go to Paul Revere’s home, unlike her critics.
The Smothers Brothers comedians Tommy Smothers (C) and Dick Smothers (R) and wife of Tommy Smothers, Marcy Carricker (L), arrive at the 60th Primetime Emmy Awards held at Nokia Theatre on September 21, 2008 in Los Angeles, California.
The Accidental Interview – Smothers & Van Dyke
Ran into Jerry Van Dyke & Tommy Smothers in a restaurant in Hot Springs, AR over Memorial Day weekend. They were in town performing Neil Simon’s “The Sunshine Boys”, in preparation to taking to Broadway. They very graciously allowed me to interview them and shoot some video. Needless to say, it was a hoot! http://directorzone.cyberlink.com/video/550283
My son Wilson wants to be a movie director and my son Hunter is trying his hand at comedy. I told both of them that they needed to see Jerry Van Dyke and Tommy Smoothers because they both are comedy legends. Hunter was tied up, so Wilson went with me to see the “Sunshine Boys” on June 1st in Hot Springs. It was unbelievable. We sat on the 2nd row. The place was filled!! The chemistry of the two actors was great.
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported:
HOT SPRINGS — Two kings of comedy take the stage tonight at the RayLynn Theater in Hot Springs, where they take on characters they say are not too different from themselves.
Longtime performers Jerry Van Dyke of TV’s Coach fame and Tommy Smothers, half of the music and comedy team of the Smothers Brothers, have recently joined forces to present The Sunshine Boys over seven days at the RayLynn Theater, 710 Central Ave.
The show opens today and continues through Wednesday.
In the Neil Simon comedy, a former vaudevillian duo, who grew to hate each other over their more than 40 years together, are invited to reunite for an on-screen performance.
“It’s us,” Van Dyke said. “It’s two over-the-hill comedians that were a team and broke up years ago and are fighting and they have to reappear to do a famous sketch.”
He and Smothers — both in their 70s — have never performed together, but, like the characters in the play, one wants to retire while the other wants to continue working. Van Dyke hopes to take the performance on to Broadway, but Smothers is reluctant.
“I tried to get a lot of people to do [this part], but the problem with it is if you’re old enough to do it, you’re too old to do it,” said Van Dyke, who is also directing and producing the play.
Though he was familiar with The Sunshine Boys storyline, he had not read the script until a few years ago when someone suggested he do the play.
“When I read the play, I wanted to do it because it was me, now,” Van Dyke said. “It’s the best role I’ve ever had. I am this guy.”
Van Dyke, who began his career as a stand-up comedian, had his television debut on The Dick Van Dyke Show. On the show he portrayed, as in real life, the young brother of Robert Petree, played by his older brother Dick.
Jerry went on to appear in a number of other shows and movies. He earned four Emmy nominations for his supporting role in Coach, which ran from 1989-1997.
Now a resident of Glen Rose, Jerry debuted The Sunshine Boys last October at the RayLynn Theater, with Jack Iafrate of Hot Springs Village playing alongside him.
“There are a lot of places that [Jerry] could perform this, but this is close to where he lives, and he loves Hot Springs,” said Tom Wilkins, owner of the RayLynn Theater and a longtime friend of Jerry.
Last year’s performance of The Sunshine Boys was “extremely successful,” Wilkins said, and, as a result, they decided to bring it back — this time with Smothers.
“This is a whole new added twist,” Wilkins said. “Bringing Tommy in is something that’s going to really give it new life, if you will.”
Wilkins said he expects this year’s performance to be successful as well.
“I think it’s going to be fantastic,” Wilkins said. “The phone has been extremely busy. When you get those two guys together, they both have big names and are extremely professional, I think that it will be a huge success.”
Following its debut at the RayLynn Theater last year, Jerry took the play to Branson, Mo., performing again with Iafrate, then to Malibu, Calif., where he performed with his brother, Dick.
Jerry said he had always had Smothers in mind for the part, though, having first approached him about it two years ago. Smothers, however, turned him down.
“I said, ‘I’m not interested. I don’t do plays. I can’t memorize them,’” Smothers said.
Jerry persisted, though, and eventually won him over.
“He sent me this video of him and his brother doing [The Sunshine Boys], and he’s so brilliant in this play,” Smothers said.
“I brought him out of retirement,” Jerry boasted. “It took me two years, but I got him.”
Last year, Smothers, a resident of Sonoma, Calif., retired after 51 years of touring with his brother, Dick. The longtime duo rose to fame with their popular yet controversial variety show, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. The pair continued their act following the show’s cancellation in 1969, performing both on stage and on television.
After wrapping up their schedule at the RayLynn Theater, Jerry and Tommy will take the show to Dallas, and possibly on to Broadway.
“With my brother, they came out from Broadway [to see the show] and wanted us immediately,” Jerry said. “[Dick] is 85. He couldn’t do it. So they’re going to see it with Tommy here and hopefully, we’ll go to Broadway — if Tommy will.”
Throughout their careers, Jerry and Tommy have met on occasion — the first time some 40 years ago — but they never really knew each other until recently.
By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Andrew Miga, Associated Press 59 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Two decades ago, Rick Santorum took the House by storm as a freshman rabble-rouser who gave the complacent Republican leadership fits.
One decade ago, Santorum vaulted into the Senate GOP leadership as a young firebrand whose conservative zeal later helped cost him his seat in Congress.
Now, in a new decade, Santorum is back.
At 53, he’s entering the Republican presidential race no longer offering himself to voters as a rising star or the next big thing, but as the tried-and-true candidate conservatives can count on — like an old shoe that fits better than anything new.
“Someone who’s been there for many, many years talking about the same issues in the same way is what a lot of folks, a lot of conservatives, are looking for,” he says.
Long a favorite of religious and social conservatives for his staunch opposition to gay rights and abortion, Santorum is joining the GOP field on Monday as a longshot driven by his belief that religion deserves a stronger role in public life.
“To me there are truths out there,” Santorum said recently in an AP interview. “There are things that are right and things that are wrong. That may not be popular and it may lose you an election, but that’s OK.”
Santorum may have lost some swagger since his days as a congressional upstart, but he’s betting that the same conservative fire that worked against him when he lost his seat in Congress will be a big advantage in GOP primaries and caucuses often dominated by the right.
He’s selling authenticity.
“He says things that are combustible,” said Terry Madonna, a professor and pollster at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania. “He’s hard-charging and high-octane. … But he’s very direct. You don’t have to worry about double-speak with him. He is what he is.”
Santorum’s conservatism is deeply rooted in his faith.
He grew up in a devout Catholic family in Butler, Pa., the son of an Italian immigrant father who was a psychologist and a mother who was a nurse.
“You had to be on your deathbed not to go to Mass,” said his younger brother, Dan.
Butler was a mostly blue-collar town with lots of ethnic churches, Rick Santorum recalled.
“Those characteristics of hard work, loyalty, family and church were very much drummed into me,” he said.
Dan Santorum said his brother had a deep competitive streak, evident when he played baseball, chess and board games like Risk. He hated losing.
“He still does,” said the younger Santorum. “But he’s not a sore loser. He’s not a quitter. That’s served him well in politics.”
During college at Penn State, Rick Santorum drifted a bit from his faith before meeting his wife, Karen Garver Santorum.
“The beautiful thing about it is we grew in our faith together,” Santorum said. “We wanted that to be the grounding for our marriage.”
That faith has been tested. He and his wife have seven children. Another child, Gabriel Michael, died in 1996, two hours after an emergency delivery.
The couple slept with the bundled dead baby’s body in their hospital room that night, wanting to keep Gabriel in their arms until the burial. They took Gabriel’s body home so their other children could see and hold the baby before burying him, according to Karen Garver Santorum’s book, “Letters to Gabriel.”
“Daddy and I wanted to hold you for as long as we possibly could,” she wrote.
The couple’s youngest child, 3-year-old Isabella, was born in 2008 with trisomy 18, a genetic disorder. Fewer than 10 percent of those diagnosed with the condition live to their first birthday.
Santorum says his daughter’s illness cut both ways as he debated whether to run: He wanted to spend as much time with her as possible, but he also felt the need to fight for “children like Bella and for the dignity of human life.”
“These children are simply denied care because they don’t have long life expectancies,” he told the AP. “They’re not seen as useful economic units.”
Santorum has doggedly laid the groundwork for what he hopes is his comeback campaign. He’s been a frequent visitor to New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, states that vote early in the nominating season. His back-to-better-days campaign slogan: “Fighting to make America America again.”
But his candidacy will have to overcome hurdles, including low name recognition and the lack of a strong fund-raising organization. He also has to hope supporters aren’t scared off by his 18-point loss in the 2006 Senate race.
Santorum was elected to the House in 1990 at age 32. He shot to prominence as one of the “Gang of Seven” freshman Republicans who bucked their leadership and helped to expose fellow lawmakers who had abused checking privileges at the now-defunct House bank. In 1994, the scandal helped the GOP capture control of the House.
That same year, Santorum beat Democratic Sen. Harris Wofford and emerged as a conservative force to be reckoned with in the Senate, attaining the No. 3 leadership spot in the chamber.
He successfully pushed a bill that banned late-term abortions. In 2005, Time magazine named him among the nation’s 25 most influential evangelists.
Santorum held his Senate seat for 12 years before losing in 2006 to Democrat Bob Casey, the son of a popular former governor, as part of an anti-war, anti-incumbent tide.
Controversy over his conservative views hurt him as well.
Santorum drew sharp criticism after saying in 2003 that he believed states had the right to ban gay sex or other private behaviors “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.” He brought up a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law and said, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.”
His words sparked protest, particularly among gay rights supporters and Democrats.
Santorum later said his remarks were in the context of a past Supreme Court ruling on privacy and were not meant as “a statement on individual lifestyles.”
Since losing his Senate seat, Santorum has given speeches and worked at a conservative think tank and as a cable news channel commentator.
Arnold Schwarzenegger Never Got A DNA Test for Love Child was a top story. Here is the recap: (TMZ) Arnold Schwarzenegger concedes he’s Mildred “Patty” Baena’s baby daddy, but TMZ has learned there was NEVER a DNA test establishing paternity. Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the baby saga tell TMZ … Arnold never demanded a DNA test. We’ve also learned Baena never took steps to establish paternity through DNA. As for why Arnold was so sure he was the father … our sources say Baena’s husband was not even in the United States when the baby was conceived. He returned to the U.S. just days before the boy was born. By the time the boy was a toddler, it became “physically obvious” that Arnold was the dad, one source says. In fact, we’re told several members of the Maria Shriver/Arnold Schwarzenegger staff sometimes confused Arnold’s youngest son, Christopher, with Baena’s child.
Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube clip above she comments: […]
Hot Topics-Arnold’s Love Child – The View Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In […]
Schwarzenegger’s Love Child Bombshell Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube […]
Arnold Schwarzenegger: News On Woman & Love Child TMZ Scoop Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed […]
Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.
Death is universal. Apart from the intervention of the second advent of Christ, every human being will die. But how humans should die is a point of keen debate in the history of ethics.
Christians and non-Christians have deeply disagreed over the ethical validity of “non-natural” means of human death, namely suicide, abortion, infanticide, capital punishment, war, and euthanasia. And even among Christians there have been deep disagreements over whether these means of human death are ever legitimate. Specifically, then, what should a Christian think about the surging interest in euthanasia in our largely non-Christian culture?
For a host of reasons including advancements in medical technology, the aging of America, and the increasing impact of the secularization of our society, the concept of “quality of life” continues to supplant the concept of “sanctity of life.” Not surprisingly, the practice of euthanasia, simply translated as “the good death,” is a topic of increasing interest and concern.
The stories of Karen Ann Quinlan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the Hemlock Society, and Terri Shiavo have filled the news. “Death with dignity,” “mercy killing,” “the right to die,” or “physician assisted suicide” identify some of the claims of the advocates of euthanasia.
To consider the issues surrounding euthanasia, or the alleged “good death,” it is essential to understand how we, as a society, have arrived at the point where legislators are discussing not how we are to live, but how we are to die.
The Advent of the Culture of Death
Euthanasia is not new. But its rise to the forefront of our social and political discussions can be seen as one outcome of the legalization of abortion in 1973. Claims by the critics of abortion that its legalization would naturally lead to infanticide and euthanasia were seen as scare tactics to keep women from exercising their “right to privacy” or “right to choose.” However, it was not long until these warnings were becoming realities. “Deformed” children were being starved to death or refused treatment and newborn infants were being discarded in trash bins.
Surgeon General of the U.S. Dr. C. Everett Koop responded to the euthanasia/infanticide by starvation of a Down syndrome child in a Bloomfield, Ind., hospital by writing an article in 1980 entitled “Slide to Auschwitz.” He explained that when the “quality of life” value system replaces the “sanctity of life” ethic, it is the first step to what the Nazi physicians at Auschwitz proclaimed—namely, that the unhealthy, the aged, the handicapped, the mentally incompetent, or the dying were lebensunwerten Lebens, or “life unworthy of life.”
Francis Schaeffer explained this emerging thinking when he described an article by author Charles Hartshorne in a 1981 article in The Christian Century entitled “Concerning Abortion, an Attempt at a Rational View.” Schaeffer wrote, “He [Hartshorne] begins by equating the fact that the human fetus is alive with the fact that mosquitoes and bacteria are also alive. That is, he begins by assuming that human life is not unique. He then continues by saying that even after the baby is born it is not fully human until its social relations develop (though he says the infant does have some primitive social relations an unborn fetus does not have). His conclusion is, ‘Nevertheless, I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide is just another form of murder. Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights even than infants.’ He then, logically takes the next step: ‘Does this distinction apply to the killing of a hopelessly senile person or one in a permanent coma? For me it does.’ No atheistic humanist could say it with greater clarity.”
The high priest of mercy killing, Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton makes the thinking clear in his book Practical Ethics: “I do not deny that if one accepts abortion … the case for euthanasia … is strong. … euthanasia is not something to be regarded with horror. … On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life … it is the refusal to accept euthanasia which, in some cases, is horrific.” Thus the leaps from abortion to infanticide, to voluntary euthanasia, and ultimately to involuntary euthanasia are not leaps at all, but the natural consequence of stepping onto the slippery slope of morality apart from God.
The Unfolding Expression of the Culture of Death
To a society which no longer embraces the sanctity of human life, the natural extension of a woman’s “right to choose” is a person’s right to die at the time and under the conditions of their own choosing. Physician John M. Templeton, Jr., explains, “This right of personal autonomy regarding medical intervention can contribute to the concept of death with dignity. However, some persons have begun to try and push the concept of rights into extreme positions. In the words of Leon Kass, author of Death with Dignity and the Sanctity of Life, ‘We find people asserting a “right to die” grounded not in objective conditions regarding prognosis or the uselessness of treatment, but in the supremacy of choice itself. In the name of choice, people claim the right to choose to cease to be choosing beings. From such a right to refuse not only treatment, but life itself—that is, from a right to become dead—it is then a small step to the right to be made dead. From my right to die will follow your duty to assist me in dying, i.e., to become the agent of my death, if I am not able, or do not wish, to kill myself.’”
The ultimate expression of the culture of death is of course, the arbitrary killing of human beings based on some yet to be determined criteria, such as age, health, productivity, or cost to society. Philip E. Hughes writes, “given the evolutionist presupposition that the species is of far more consequence than the individual, that Man matters rather than man, it is far from fantastic to envisage the enactment of a law which, in the interest of mankind, would prescribe that on reaching, say, the age of 60, persons should be ‘put to sleep’—painlessly of course—by means of a pill, potion, or an injection.”
What role do physicians play in this new paradigm of the culture of death where they are called no longer to be life givers and sustainers, but instead to become managers of life and death? Templeton, in Death and Dying, writes, “The Dutch, in their research on euthanasia, found that many physicians acted with the initial intention of relieving pain and suffering, but also with the admitted ‘partial intention’ of hastening death. Now the Dutch parliament has lifted all restraints and has completely legalized active euthanasia, even in some cases without the patient’s consent.”
In the end, Peter Singer’s questions paint the road map for the culture of death. “For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.” Singer posits the ultimate question, “But why should human life have special value?”
The Imago Dei
Why is human life precious and why is it wrong to take a life? For the Christian, the answer is clear. We are created by God; in fact, we are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28.). But living out that answer is not always simple or easy. This understanding of the sanctity of life is undergirded by God’s moral law, summarized in the sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” J. Douma writes, “When we live and die in God’s presence, we do not exercise self-determination over ourselves. When God says that we may not kill, then we must not proceed stubbornly to put an end to our own lives. The wish for death can be a Christian desire, even outside of the dying stage of life (see Philippians 1:23). We may even pray for that; but that kind of praying itself presupposes that we must leave the realization thereof to God Himself.”
Professor J. J. Davis further clarifies how euthanasia is a violation of the sixth commandment: “Human life is sacred because God made man in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-28). This canopy of sacredness extends throughout man’s life, and is not simply limited to those times and circumstances when man happens to be strong, independent, healthy, and fully conscious of his relationships to others. … The same God who lovingly is present in the womb can be present in the dying and comatose patient, for whom conscious human relationships are broken. The body of the dying can still be a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), and hence sacred to God. The euthanasia mentality sees man as the lord of his own life; the Christian sees human life as a gift from God, to be held in trusteeship throughout man’s life on earth: ‘You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body’ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Determining the moment of death is God’s prerogative, not man’s (Job 14:5). Man does not choose his own death, but acquiesces in the will of the heavenly Father, knowing that for the believer, death is both the last enemy, and the doorway to eternal life. Because man bears the image of God, his life is sacred in every state of its existence, in sickness or in health, in the womb, in infancy, in adolescence, in maturity, in old age, or even in the process of dying itself.”
In a culture of death, Christians are called to be shining lights of hope to a forlorn and fallen world. When Christians choose life for themselves and/or others—offering to the suffering not deadly poisons, but rather Christ’s life-giving love in word and deed—they reflect the gospel hope of the eternal life promised by Christ’s resurrection.
Dr. Peter A. Lillback is senior pastor of Proclamation Presbyterian Church (PCA) and president of Westminster Theological Seminary.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, his son Christopher, 9, and his wife Maria Shriver hold hands as they walk to their vehicle after voting inthe U.S. midterm elections at the Crestwood Hills Recreation Center in Los Angeles, California, in this November 7, 2006 file photo. Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has acknowledged that he fathered a child more than ten years ago with a member of his household staff, the Los Angeles Times reported on May 17, 2011. REUTERS/Danny Moloshok/Files
Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life?
Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube clip above she comments:
“Like a lot of you I’m in transition: people come up to me all the time, asking, what are you doing next?” she said, adding: “It’s so stressful to not know what you are doing next when people ask what you are doing and they can’t believe you don’t know what you are doing.”
“I’d like to hear from other people who are in transition,” she said. “How did you find your transition: Personal, professional, emotional, spiritual, financial? How did you get through it?”
Mrs. Shriver has asked for spiritual input and I personally think that unless she gets the spiritual help that she needs then she will end up in the divorce court. I am starting a series on how a marriage can survive an infidelity. My first suggestion would be to attend a “Weekend to Remember” put on by the organization “Family Life” out of Little Rock, Arkansas. I actually posted this as a response to Mrs. Shriver’s request on you tube.
Adrift in Marriage:Jerry and Olivia Dugan wanted to stay married but didn’t know how by Mary May Larmoyeux
When Jerry and Olivia Dugan got married, they pledged lifelong commitment to one another. After all, they each knew firsthand how divorce rips families apart. They had individually vowed, “I will never do that to my children.”
When Jerry was 11 years old, his Army father secured housing for the family in Germany. Jerry remembers eating breakfast in a little trailer park in Southern California when his mother said she wasn’t following her husband overseas. He initially believed his mother, but then his brother started to cry—he had seen the man their mother was having an affair with.
Jerry says his parents’ divorce left a hole in his heart.
Olivia was just 7 years old when her mother announced that her father had to move out of their home. “We were at my house; it was late in the evening. I can still see it … I cried.”
After her parents’ divorce, her mother remarried. Olivia was not able to see her father as much as she wanted to. “My stepdad didn’t treat me like my daddy.”
Olivia promised herself that she would never divorce. “I knew that I wanted to be married forever.”
Like Olivia, Jerry wanted a lifelong marriage. He listened carefully to the vows that couples made at weddings. He wondered, Why did my parents break their vows? If commitment is so important, why is it okay to break it?
They didn’t know how
When Jerry and Olivia were married, each of them had the desire to keep their commitment. But something was missing: They didn’t know how. A few years into their marriage, they began to drift apart. “There were paths that we were starting on,” Jerry says. “By year 14 or 15 we might have ended up like our parents.”
Instead of continuing on their path toward isolation, the Dugans went to a Weekend to Remember® marriage getaway. That’s when they heard about God’s design for marriage. They learned what it would take for their relationship to last a lifetime.
A few weeks after that weekend, the Dugans had what Jerry describes as “some really heavy fights.” He says that the communication skills they learned allowed them not only to get through those arguments, but also helped them grow closer together.
Many of their arguments centered around money, and the getaway had taught them how to “fight fair.” Olivia says that she had a tendency to say hurtful words to her husband when things got heated. Now she asks herself: Do I want to say something mean and hurtful or can I say something constructive and get this conflict resolved?
“It feels good to see change”
Olivia and Jerry have seen from their own marriage how easy it is for couples to drift apart. They don’t want other families to experience what they did as kids of divorced parents. That’s why they became Weekend to Remember group coordinators at their church, Bay Area Fellowship (Corpus Christi, Texas). They are grateful that God is working through them to make a difference.
Two years ago, 22 couples from their church attended a Weekend to Remember, and the following year 20 more couples attended. Those who registered as part of a group received 50 percent off the regular registration rate. And as group coordinators, the Dugans earned one free registration (for one couple) for each completed group of five couples.
Jerry and Olivia wondered, Who should receive the free registrations? They asked their pastors, “Who have you been counseling every week that needs to go to this?”
The couples who were chosen not only expressed their appreciation to the Dugans, but also told their friends about the marriage getaway. Says Jerry, “It feels good to see the change—couples going in [to the getaway] hurting and struggling and coming out renewed.”
Today many of those same couples are leading small groups and Bible studies. “After the Weekend to Remember,” Jerry says, “They were one unit going forward for Christ and that blows me away.”
Investing in families
Olivia is a part-time preschool teacher and Jerry is in real estate. Despite their busy schedules and their responsibilities raising two children, they think it’s important to intentionally invest in other families.
Olivia says that the media portrays a laissez faire attitude about divorce—as though it doesn’t really matter. “But it is a big deal,” she says. “It tears kids up and their families!”
Jerry says that he and Olivia are passionate about sharing God’s blueprints for marriage not only in their church, but also throughout their hometown of Corpus Christi.
“We want our town to realize divorce is not an option. Kids should expect to have one mom and one dad. Period.”
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Charles, Prince of Wales leave Clarence House to travel to Buckingham Palace for the evening celebrations. (John Stillwell/WPA Pool/Getty Images)
I watched the royal wedding with great interest, and I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
Cohabiting not only leads to higher divorce rates, says research, but it’s highly unstable: half of all co-habitees’ relationships last less than a year and 90% end within five years, mostly because couples break up, according to a new study by New York’s Cornell University, published in the journal Demography in May. We know cohabiting couples are less assured than married couples, and tend to be more violent with reduced concern for fidelity. Cohabiting men and women also share a greater likelihood of depression than their married counterparts. (From article: Perils of “Living in Sin” – Shacking up isn’t always a guarantee of marriage Edmonton Sun (Canada) 8/05/06 By Jennifer Parks)
• Myth: Cohabiting relationships are more egalitarian than marriage. It is common knowledge that women and children suffer more poverty after a cohabiting relationship breaks up, but it’s not so well understood that there is typically an economic imbalance in favor of the man within such relationships, too. While couples who live together say that they plan to share expenses equally, more often than not the women support the men. Studies show that women typically contribute more than 70 percent of the income in a cohabiting relationship. Likewise, the women tend to do more of the cleaning, cooking and laundry. If they are students, as is often the case, and facing economic or time constraints that require a reduction in class load, it is almost invariably the woman, not the man, who drops a class. (Janice Shaw Crouse PhD, from the article, “The Myths and Reality of Living Together Without Marriage” as posted on Crosswalk.com)
NEW YORK – A forgotten Sarah Palin who worked with Democrats to pass landmark legislation emerges in the new documentary The Undefeated. Shushannah Walshe gets an early look and talks to director Stephen K. Bannon.
The Undefeated, a glowing, dramatic documentary about Sarah Palin’s history from the former Alaska governor’s point of view, is the latest step in Palin’s effort to reframe her image ahead of a potential presidential run. And it may succeed in bringing in conservatives who loved her in 2008 but have been turned off since.
The film’s director, Stephen K. Bannon, says he believes it will attract independents and liberals as well. “I think there is a huge audience out there for moderates and liberals that want to see this film,” he told The Daily Beast. “The American people are fair and decent, and I think they are willing to give this movie a shot and learn something they may not know about Gov. Palin.”
The Daily Beast got an early screening of The Undefeated, which offers an accurate look at just how much Palin was able to accomplish in her short tenure as governor of Alaska. The film goes into gritty detail about how Palin passed legislation that other governors had been working on for decades, including the initial legislation for a gas pipeline, oil tax reform that brought in billions for the state and its residents, and a push for Exxon Mobil to start drilling in an oil field it had been sitting on for decades. Many of the state’s lawmakers now think the oil tax reform legislation is a mistake, curbing oil exploration, but at the time of its passage, the bill was hailed as a boon in the 49th state.
Bannon, the 57-year-old filmmaker behind the Tea Party movie Generation Zero, was approached by SarahPAC treasurer Tim Crawford and adviser Rebecca Mansour after the 2010 midterm elections to make a series of videos about Palin. With her blessing and help facilitating, he instead decided to make a feature-length film about the former governor, putting up the money himself.
“It’s a fascinating story,” Bannon said. “It’s someone who’s one of the most well-known people in the world, but not a lot is really known about her. It was really the rise from obscurity to prominence. I thought was a terrific story, and no one has ever told it in film.”
Bannon defended the omission of Troopergate, saying it is not a “central theme” of her tenure and that the potential abuse of power case has been covered in depth.
Brought up in an Irish Catholic family of union workers and Reagan Democrats in Virginia, Bannon said he’s “always been pretty conservative.” When he’s not making documentaries, he’s the CEO of IMI Exchange, which trades “virtual currency” for the global video game industry, a business run mostly in Asia that he co-owns with Goldman Sachs and Oak Ventures. Most of his friends are liberals, he said, and politics is now off the table when his extended family gets together at Christmas.
Bannon—who owns homes in Santa Monica and Laguna Beach and describes himself as part of a small group of “Hollywood cultural conservatives” that includes Andrew Breitbart, Gary Sinise, David Mamet, and Dennis Miller—funded the film with $1 million of his own money.
“We thought it was going to be a commercial film,” he said. “We thought people would be fascinated by this and we thought we would have a strong return on investments. We always had a vision, my partners and I, if we told the story, the real story of Gov. Palin that it would have a huge audience.”
The Undefeated opens with Palin family home video and then cuts to footage of Palin detractors Matt Damon, Rosie O’Donnell, and others describing why they can’t stand the former Alaska governor. It’s an effective and eye-catching start that grabs the viewer. The film also shows how Palin has stunned the establishment, from the Wasilla mayor she crushed to the Alaska GOP, by sweeping into the governor’s office and working with Democrats to get her legislation passed. It’s a Palin who has been largely forgotten since she was chosen as John McCain’s running mate.
The film colorfully draws clear lines, as Palin does herself, between the “good guys” and “bad guys.” When the Beltway Republican establishment does not defend her, Bannon uses video of a zebra being eaten by hungry lions. When Palin is trying to get elected in the wake of FBI raids and arrests of state legislators, the film shows smoky rooms with cigar-chomping men, with a voice-over of Palin’s voice from the audio version ofGoing Rogue. (Palin wasn’t interviewed directly for the film, but she has seen a rough cut and told the press who traveled with her last week on her bus tour that she was “blown away” by it.)
The stock video may be hokey, but Palin’s Alaskan supporters and former staffers do a much better job defending her record. Palin’s former spokeswoman, Meg Stapleton, joins her former attorney Tom van Flein, her Wasilla deputy mayor Judy Patrick, and oil and gas adviser Marty Rutherford, among others. All are passionate and mostly quite effective retelling the drama of those moments in the legislature and negotiations with the oil companies. It’s also an incredible reminder of Palin in Alaska before she became a household name.
The film mostly ignores social conservative issues to focus on Palin’s big wins with energy and fiscal issues, and it completely skips Troopergate. Bannon defended the omission, saying it is not a “central theme” of her tenure and that the potential abuse of power case had already been covered in depth.
In the film’s last third, though, it undergoes a serious and seemingly sudden change—one that mirrors the transformation Palin herself went through. The problem solver who worked with Democrats to get Alaskans their fair share becomes a right-wing firebrand who instead of being defended by passionate Alaskans has conservative agitators Mark Levin, Andrew Breitbart, and Tammy Bruce speaking for her. Palin supporters will love this change, but it’s quite jarring and will undoubtedly turn off non-Palin fans who may have been starting to see a different side of her earlier in the film.
Van Flein goes into detail about why Palin resigned her governorship after fighting so hard to get there in 2006. He is also effective, but if Palin does run in 2012, this move will be the hardest for her to explain, even with van Flein’s defense. After watching the hard-charging politician get so much done in record time, blaming her resignation on ethics complaints filed by Alaskans—as annoying and costly as they may have been for the Palin family—just isn’t believable. The Sarah Palin depicted in the film would keep fighting, but she didn’t. Stapleton, a passionate defender of her former boss in the film, gives an over-the-top account of how sad it was for Alaskans that Palin was forced to step down, another moment that stretches credulity.
The Undefeated is set to premiere at the end of June in the first caucus state of Iowa, and from there it will travel to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Bannon said he will announce a distribution deal soon that will back a commercial run.
The director said he doesn’t know whether Palin will run for president but that he would back her if she does throw her hat in the ring: “I certainly think she would add a tremendous voice in the Republican primary…I think it would be terrific.”
The final section of the documentary is introduced with the caption “From here, I can see November.” This hint is the latest of several Palin has been giving that she will indeed jump into the 2012 race. After clearly enjoying being back on the trail this week and being urged on by supporters, staffers, and now this film, it’s hard to see how The Undefeated doesn’t give Palin just one more reason she should enter the race.
Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger really is the new Tiger Woods.
Yet another woman is coming out of the woodwork and claiming to have had an affair with the disgraced former California governor. This time, it’s Danish “actress” Brigitte Nielsen, better known for being that six foot tall woman with an accent who dated Flavor Flav.
Nielsen’s film debut came in 1985, when she appeared alongside Schwarzenegger in Red Sonja. The two began a relationship according to the actress, despite Arnold dating Maria Shriver. “How serious it was…I don’t know,” Nielsen told the Daily Mail. Shriver and Schwarzenegger were married a year later.
“He never spoke about her,” she continued, “and the way he was living his life with me…I felt I was the only one. Then I realized about him and Maria and, wow, I felt cheated.”
Asked if she thought Schwarzenegger was in love with her, Nielsen says she thinks so, and adds that he was far more romantic than the “boorish” portrayal of him in the media.
Nielsen, who later married Sylvester Stallone after starring in Rocky IV with him, said she was shocked by the news of his adultery. “I’m surprised Arnold thought he could get away with it and I feel bad for Maria,” she said.
Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube clip above she comments: […]
Hot Topics-Arnold’s Love Child – The View Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In […]
Schwarzenegger’s Love Child Bombshell Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed for divorce. In the you tube […]
Arnold Schwarzenegger: News On Woman & Love Child TMZ Scoop Maria Shriver Asks – How Do You Handle Transitions in Your Life? Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to his wife several months ago that he had fathered a child about 10 years ago with a member of their household staff. Maria moved out, but has not filed […]
Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real
Bucking skeptics, he urges changes
Mitt Romney, at UNH yesterday, said if elected, he would pursue more oil drilling, as well as natural gas and nuclear energy. (Stephan Savoia/Associated Press)
MANCHESTER, N.H. — In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it, a position that has been rejected in recent years by many Republicans as the issue has taken on a greater partisan tinge.
After opening remarks in which Romney blamed President Obama’s policies for the new anemic hiring figures, the first questioner from the floor — a software developer from Hanover, N.H. — wanted to know the candidate’s position on climate change, an issue his opponents have generally avoided so far.
“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,’’ Romney said. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that . . . so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’
Romney has made clear that he opposes cap-and-trade, a system that would combat climate change by limiting total emissions and forcing polluters to pay for the greenhouse gases they produce. Instead, he said yesterday, he wants to wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil by seeking alternative sources of energy, and he said Americans should do more to conserve.
“I’m told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European, and more like three times as much energy as does a Japanese citizen,’’ Romney said. “We can do a lot better.’’
If elected, he said he would pursue more oil drilling, as well as natural gas and nuclear energy.
“We can’t just say it’s going to be all solar and wind,’’ he said. “I love solar and wind, but they don’t drive cars. And we’re not going to all drive Chevy Volts.’’
Romney’s comments were in line with his observations about global warming in his 2010 book, “No Apology.’’ In it, he wrote: “I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.’’
But his views on climate change are not shared by many in his party, particularly conservatives who often have outsized influence in the presidential nominating contest. According to a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll in October, just 38 percent of Republicans say the earth is warming and just 16 percent say it is caused by humans.
Several of Romney’s Republican rivals are also taking divergent stances on the science behind global warming.
Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor who is toying with a presidential bid, indicated in a Time magazine interview last month that he believes climate change is occurring. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty recorded a radio spot in 2007 calling on Congress to take action on climate change. But last month at a debate in South Carolina, he disavowed his past position. “I don’t duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away,’’ he said. “I made a mistake.’’
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich has also shifted positions on the issue. In 2007, he told PBS that the weight of evidence over time convinced him of the need to do something about global warming. The next year, he appeared with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an ad saying Congress needed to take action on climate change.
But last month he said such concerns were overblown, telling The Telegraph of Georgia: “When I see 6,000 scientists sign something, that’s called political science. That’s not science.’’
“The planet used to be dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people,’’ he said. “To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs weren’t driving cars.’’
Romney’s town hall came on a day where activity in the first-in the-nation primary state continued to buzz. Sarah Palin had breakfast yesterday in Portsmouth with Senator Kelly Ayotte and later said she planned to take her bus tour to Iowa and South Carolina, two early-voting states.
As an indication of the harried nature of the campaign, Huntsman and his wife — on their way to New Hampshire for weekend campaign events — arrived at Logan International Airport on the same airplane that Romney and his wife got on to fly to Washington (the two potential rivals did not appear to see each other in the terminal). Romney, who sat in coach, arrived in Washington, bought a pretzel at Auntie Anne’s, and then spotted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Madam Secretary!’’ he cried out, as he extended his hand. “Mitt Romney. Nice to see you.’’
Romney’s town hall in Manchester marked the first time this year he has faced voters in the unscripted forums that New Hampshire prides itself on. On his campaign’s favorite theme, the weak economy, Romney used the newly released unemployment data to continue his sharp critique of Obama.
“Look he’s a nice guy, he’s well spoken, he could talk a dog off a meat wagon, and yet he hasn’t delivered,’’ the former Massachusetts governor said in a lecture hall at the University of New Hampshire’s campus here.
Even last night, as he addressed Christian conservatives at a forum in Washington, he devoted much of his 13-minute speech to economic issues. Only at the beginning of the address did he mention social concerns, reiterating his opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
“We’re united tonight in a lot of things,’’ he told a gathering of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “We’re united in the love we have for this great country. We’re united in our belief in the sanctity of human life. We’re united in our belief in the importance and significance of a marriage between one man and one woman.’’
At the town hall, Romney continued talking about cutting spending, but he did not identify areas to target. He said he supported the general goals of a politically dicey proposal from House Republicans that would partially privatize Medicare.
“No one in my party has proposed any change for those programs for anybody who’s retired or who’s near retirement,’’ he said. “The question is: What are we going to promise people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s? And the answer is, let’s tell them the truth.’’
Romney, who has been loathe to bring up social issues after struggling to reconcile some of his shifting positions on them four years ago, also took a question on abortion. A man asked whether there should be criminal sanctions against doctors who perform abortions in states that make them illegal.
“I think the right thing for matters related to abortion is very similar to one I’ve described in other measures, which is return this to the states,’’ Romney said. “I’m pro-life, and I think this is a decision best handled, like many other things, at the state level.’’
Theo Emery of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
the Dugans went to a 
A forgotten Sarah Palin who worked with Democrats to pass landmark legislation emerges in the new documentary The Undefeated. Shushannah Walshe gets an early look and talks to director Stephen K. Bannon.
Mitt Romney, at UNH yesterday, said if elected, he would pursue more oil drilling, as well as natural gas and nuclear energy. (Stephan Savoia/Associated Press)
The Daily Hatch 