The 44th Carnival of Homeschooling is up! - and this blog is in it, so be sure to check it out!  It's full of great "tricks and treats" for homeschoolers.

This afternoon Hugh Hewitt posted the most recent circulation figures from Editor and Publisher, and they don't look good for any of the major newspapers.  The Los Angeles Times' figures really caught my attention, though:

        The Los Angeles Times reported that daily 
        circulation fell 8% to 775,766. Sunday dropped 
        6% to 1,172,005.

Those numbers seemed extraordinarily low to me, so I decided to do a quick search and find out the current population of the Los Angeles area.  What I found amazed me.  Los Angeles alone, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, had a 2005 estimated population of 9,935,475.  And according to Thomas Brinkhoff's "Principal Agglomerations of the World," the population of the Los Angeles area as a whole is about 18,000,000. 

Now think about that for a minute.  Out of a total population of 18 million, the Los Angeles Times can only muster a daily readership of 775,000; and even the Sunday version, with comics and ads and coupons, only draws just over 1 million.  Other statistics Hugh quotes are similar, though not quite as dramatic.

It boggles the mind to consider that the major papers are so attached to their agenda journalism that they are unwilling to change, even when it means they face absolute financial ruin.

Because my readers live scattered across several states, I've normally stayed away from discussions of individual electoral races.  But today I'm going to depart from this to discuss a statement reported by Hugh Hewitt today.  Harold Ford, a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, said yesterday:

            My friend Lincoln Davis who chairs our campaign says 
            there are, there’s one big difference between us and 
            misfortunate Republicans when it comes to our faith: he 
            said that Republicans fear the Lord; he said Democrats 
            fear AND love the Lord.

Wow!  That would be news to many of us Republicans who really do LOVE the Lord as well as fear Him.  I suppose it sounded good to Harold Ford; it sounds very strange to most of the rest of the country, especially the many Christian Republicans around the country.

Hugh's take on this and some of yesterday's other events:

        I think Ford may easily capture the award for the most 
        stunning display of incompetence in the closing two weeks 
        of a senate campaign ever.  Other nominees are welcome, 
        but I can't think of a series of missteps as dramatic as 
        those Ford has committed.

        Add to this Michael Fox's admission that he hasn't read 
        the initiaitive he endorsed,  Michael Steele's clobbering of 
        bland Ben Cardin on MTP and Debbie Stabenow attacking 
        Michigan businesses that are actually creating jobs, and 
        you get a very good day for the GOP, which is the opening 
        of the very bad week for Dems.

 As might be expected from American media these days, who all too often focus on the insignificant while ignoring the important, we have heard nothing until yesterday about the chaos in the Mexican city of Oaxaca.  Yesterday FOX News finally reported on this story, after an American journalist was killed there; but the craziness on the streets there has been going on for five months. 

Apparently the original issue was a teacher's strike against the state of Oaxaca for higher pay and better working conditions (which unless they have improved drastically since I lived in Latin America are definitely needed).  After being attacked by police in June, however, the teachers began to call for the resignation of the governor of the state, who is being accused of rigging the election.  According to the article, the teachers have been joined by "leftists, students, and Indian groups" - a pretty benign description that in Latin America usually means Communists, Socialists, and anyone else who is dissatisfied with the government and wants to throw things and hurt people.  Apparently there have been repeated requests for the federal government in Mexico to intervene, to no avail.

But after the protestors killed an American journalist, Mexican President Vicente Fox has sent in troops to try to calm the chaotic situation.  The roads into and out of the city of Oaxaca are currently closed, as is the regional airport, and buses into and out of Oaxaca are not running.

So what can we do?

1)  Remember that even from FOX News, it's fairly likely that what we are hearing here is not the whole story.  Having lived in Guatemala during the height of the civil war there, I can testify to the fact that there is usually far more to what's going on there than meets the eye.  Don't expect you will know exactly what's really going on unless you have friends in the area, and then don't expect to hear it until they are back on American soil.  It is usually dangerous for Americans to voice any opinion on these issues when there is any risk of being monitored, either by telephone, letter, or email.

2) PRAY!!!  Even as we realize we don't have the whole picture of what's going on there, it is painfully obvious that the city is turmoil and that people there are hurting.  Pray for believers in Oaxaca, for courage and for steadfastness under persecution (because Oaxaca has a reputation for persecuting Christians).  Pray for unbelievers, that their experiences, their fears and their pain, will cause them to turn to God in substantial numbers.  Pray that God will work through this situation to bring glory to Himself.

3)  If you have contacts in Oaxaca, send them an email or a note of encouragement.  Don't mention anything too political - you don't want to get them in trouble - but let them know you are thinking of them and praying for them.  Times are probably difficult for them right now - no way into or out of the city, and provisions are likely to get scarce quickly if they aren't already.  Be sure they know they are in your thoughts.

In an article of grave concern to those of us who find Hugo Chavez more than just a "nice man," Tim Golden of the New York Times today reports on the Smartmatic Corporation, the Venezuelan company that made the voting machines for districts in 17 states - including Colorado, where I vote - and the District of Colombia.  The concerns I had over the security of electronic voting machines got much stronger as I read this article, which makes it quite clear the Venezuelan government had a huge influence on taking this company from a tiny business with a one-room office and a single secretary (only a few years ago) to the enormous, multi-national corporation it is today. 

The government provided significant amounts of money to the corporation; in exchange, the board which had been made up only of the two young engineers who founded the company added a third member.  That third member was a senior official in Hugo Chavez' Science Ministry, and had been an adviser to Mr. Chavez on elections technology.  The new firm also was given the contract for the technology for the 2004 recall election against Mr. Chavez, an election he then proceeded to win by a margin of almost 20 percent.  Sound fishy to you?  It does to me, too.

Now this same company has been awarded contracts for technology in many states, one of which is Colorado.  If I hadn't been concerned already about the electronic voting machines, I certainly would be now.  I do not trust Hugo Chavez at all; I do not trust any company currently looked on favorably by his government; and I especially don't trust a company where it looks as if his government provided funding in exchange for a seat on their board (and the opportunity to influence the creation and programming of United States election technology).  In my opinion, Venezuela under its current government ought to be as far removed from the American political scene as we can possibly keep it; I am disturbed that any of our governments felt it was a good idea to get election technology from any non-American company.

When I began homeschooling six years ago, I worried a lot about the issue of socialization.  Would my girls end up "weird" or isolated, as was the reputation of homeschooled kids?  I made sure my daughters were involved in as many outside activities as I could, just to be sure they were able to build relationships and make friends.  And when I was asked about socialization, I answered defensively by reciting the long list of all the things we did.

Then one day I happened on this article by Marsha Ransom entitled, "How to Answer the Socialization Question Once and For All."  Mrs. Ransom, who is also the author of the book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Homeschooling, deals with the question of socialization this way: 

        Socialization is actually defined as the process by 
        which the norms and standards of our society are 
        passed from one generation to the next. I've never 
        really thought that a complete stranger's six-year-old
        child would be a good source of information on the 
        correct standards of behavior in our family and in 
        society as a whole. As for socializing, I remember 
        from my school days that it was something you 
        weren't supposed to be doing during class!

This definition helped me a great deal, and refocused me on what socialization really was and what I was trying to accomplish.  After reading this article, I found myself less concerned about my children's social involvement (though they are still very involved), and more concerned about helping them become the kind of adults they needed to be - socially as well as in other respects.  My standards changed; rather than hanging around other children just for the sake of doing so, I intentionally planned social interactions, and I made a point of discussing these interactions with them both before and after the situations occurred.  I made sure they spent time not only with their age-mates, but with little children, teenagers, adults, and seniors.  I encouraged the girls to interact with people of different races, and we studied other cultures and religions and discussed them in some depth.

A couple of nights ago something happened that confirmed for me that we were on the right track.  My older daughter, age ten, is on the gymnastics team at a local rec center.  She has had some challenges interacting with some of the girls on the team; girls are notoriously mean and there has been some bullying.  So we have spent a substantial amount of time discussing the dynamics of the situation and analyzing possible responses she could use, and over time as she has continued to work on her relationships with these girls, she has gotten better at being a good friend.  She has gone from one of the "outcasts," the girls everyone picked on, to one of the most popular girls on the team.  The other night on the way home from gymnastics, she said to me, "Mom, I don't understand why all the girls don't TRY to be friends with J (one of the outcasts).  All you have to do is be nice to her, and when you are her friend, then everything goes a lot more smoothly."  

That's when I suddenly realized the truth:  that not everyone has the advantages homeschooling offers of being carefully trained to be a good friend, to be kind and thoughtful and to hold your tongue when you feel like saying something mean.  As a homeschooled child, my daughter doesn't spend thirty or more hours each week with other ten-year-olds, with only a handful of adult role models.  She spends substantial amounts of her time with me and with her sister, where I can observe her social interactions and offer feedback on the spot.  One day each week she spends seven hours with a group of other homeschooled kids of varying ages, learning in a co-op type arrangement from teachers supportive of homeschooling.  And when she does spend a several hours with a group of kids, whether at gymnastics team, swim classes, church, or our enrichment program, she is soon back with adults who care about her, who can give her practical suggestions about how to more effectively interact with those kids the next time.

So in the end, I've gone from concern that homeschooling would deprive my kids of proper socialization to satisfaction and even enthusiasm about the kind of socialization my daughters are getting.  The closeness of adult mentoring that homeschooling provides can give children exactly what they need to learn "the norms and standards of our society," as well as how to have solid, rewarding relationships with others.

 On today's Drudge Report is a fascinating article on a new high-tech ballistic missile defense system.  The new technology uses a high-intensity laser to shoot down missiles shortly after their launch.  It has certain drawbacks, including the possibility of being deflected by a reflective surface, but it's worth a try.  It has already been successfully tested on the ground.

Interestingly, the laser technology was developed by Northrop Grumman - a company descended from the same Grumman that created the lunar module for the original Apollo space program, as well as many military aircraft.  Let's hope this new technology proves as successful as these previous ventures!

Yesterday Chuck Colson, on his radio program, "Breakpoint," talked about Russia's declining population.  He quotes from this heartbreaking Los Angeles Times article that Russia “has lost the equivalent of a city of 700,000 people every year since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.”  That amounts to over 10 million people lost in the past 15 years.  Entire villages are now labeled nezhiloye - depopulated.  In many places, deaths outnumber births by more than 2 to 1.

The leadership in Russia is understandably concerned about this loss.  Quoting from Colson again,

        If demographic trends hold steady, Russia’s population,
        which stands at 142 million today, will drop to 52 million 
        by 2080. 

        Russia’s demographic crisis raises “serious questions about 
        whether Russia will be able to hold on to its lands along the 
        border with China or field an army, let alone a workforce to 
        support the ill and the elderly.”

What is causing this substantial loss of population?  The LA Times article says:

       Its people are succumbing to one of the world's fastest-
       growing AIDS epidemics, resurgent tuberculosis, rampant 
       cardiovascular disease, alcohol and drug abuse, smoking, 
       suicide and the lethal effects of unchecked industrial pollution.

        In addition, abortions outpaced births last year by more than
        100,000. An estimated 10 million Russians of reproductive age 
        are sterile because of botched abortions or poor health. The 
        public healthcare system is collapsing.

Almost every one of these causes of declining population can be directly or indirectly traced to the loss of Christianity's influence on people.  Christ brings hope to hurting people, preventing most deaths by suicide.  Obedience to God's Word prevents a life racked by AIDS and by alcohol and drug abuse.  Respect for human life stops abortion in its tracks, preventing not only the deaths of those babies, but also the fertility problems associated with botched abortions.  And the compassion that comes as a result of seeing the world as God sees it motivates Christians to reach out in medical missions, as well as in efforts to control pollution and many other benefits to society.

Colson quotes Scripps-Howard columnist Terry Mattingly:

        we have suicide, AIDS, substance abuse, rampant abortion, and 
        a loss of hope in the future . . . in a nation that, in the past 
        century, saw the rise of an atheistic regime that tried to stamp 
        out the practice of faith . . . Do you think there might be a religion 
        element in here somewhere?

Be warned - the LA Times article graphically depicts the painful truths of their declining population.  It is heartbreaking to read it.  This article, from the following day, and this one, will break your heart and get you really praying for these people, while this one will show you that as the Russian population decreases, the Muslim population in and near Russia is increasing exponentially.  The last article brings up this issue:

        Even now, said Duke University political scientist Jerry Hough, 
        the toll from the country's demographic crash is more serious 
        than Stalin's purges or the Darfur crisis in the African nation of 
        Sudan. But there is little that U.S. and European policymakers 
        can do except watch the crisis unfold.

        "What, exactly, would [people] have the United States — or for 
        that matter, human rights groups — actually do about Russian 
        life expectancy?" said Thomas Nichols, a professor at the U.S. 
        Naval War College. "Send troops to Russia to slap cigarettes and 
        vodka bottles out of the hands of young men?"

Contrary to Professor Nichols statement, however, there are some things the American people CAN do.  We can pray for the people of Russia - not only for their health and material well-being, but especially for their spiritual well-being.  It is Jesus who brings hope to those who hurt, and only He can provide the solutions the Russian people need today.  We can give to those who are already in Russia working to share the gospel and provide for the needs of the people.  And we can go, if we are called, to minister to the people and give ourselves to them.

Russia's future stands as a stark reminder of where America may also be headed.  We, too, struggle with "suicide, AIDS, substance abuse, rampant abortion, and a loss of hope in the future."  And in America, too, there are many who would like to "stamp out the practice of faith."  If we do this - if American Christians don't pray for our nation and fight to preserve religious liberty - if we continue to insist on making secularism and materialism our top national values - America will also eventually see the same kind of decline Russia is facing today.

What the German authorities are doing to homeschooled children and their parents is a travesty.  The European Union Convention on Human Rights has stated clearly that:

        No person shall be denied the right to education. In 
        the exercise of any functions which it assumes in 
        relation to education and to teaching, the State 
        shall respect the right of parents to ensure such 
        education and teaching is in conformity with their 
        own religious and philosophical convictions.

In spite of this, both Germany and the European Union's court system have made it clear that "conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" does not include homeschooling.

So far, German authorities have forced a number of parents to enroll their children in schools.  They have also jailed parents for homeschooling and charged them substantial fines.  And on Friday, as reported by WorldNet Daily, German police officers appeared at the home of a homeschooling family at 7:30 am and hauled the crying children to school. 

It is amazing that in a nation as "civilized" as Germany purports to be, this kind of action should be conducted.  It is time for us as Americans, and for folks in other civilized countries, to rise up in protest.  Whether we actually choose to homeschool our children or not is beside the point; the significant issue here is whether parents have the right and the responsibility to provide for their children's education. 

The contact information, if you'd like to join me in protesting this bullying of families by German authorities, is as follows:

            Wolfgang Ischinger, Ambassador 
            German Embassy 
            4645 Reservoir Road NW 
            Washington, DC, 20007-1998 
            (202) 298-4000

You can also email the German embassy by visiting their official website, Germany Info.

 Two years ago, at about this far away from Election Day, I sent an email to Hugh Hewitt.  I asked him essentially this question: "How do you deal with the emotions - anger, frustration, despair - that arise within you as you read the news and interact with the political scenario on a daily basis?"  Hugh, being as active as he is in finding and publicizing real solutions, did not answer that post. 

But after two years of reading his posts, listening to his radio program, and being actively involved in studying political/media issues myself, I believe I've learned something about how he does it, and how we too can handle those emotions as they arise.  In his program a few nights ago, Hugh said this:  "Don't complain - DO SOMETHING!"  The answer to the frustrations and irritations we experience is to become actively involved in making a difference.

So how do we actually do that?  There are many ways, but here are a few ideas to get you started:

1)  Give.  There are dozens of candidates and issues that need your support so they can get the word out.  If your own local races are not close, head on over to Rightroots, where a great group of conservative bloggers has joined together to raise funds for the campaigns of a number of top-notch candidates, in races that ARE competitive.

2)  Volunteer.  There are many competitive races throughout this nation, very likely including at least one or two in your area.  Even if there are none in your district or state, there may well be somewhere very near you where you could get involved.  Or contact your local area or state Republican Party office and find out how you can help.  Mailing campaign materials, helping with the GOTV ("Get Out the Vote") efforts, talking with your neighbors or even having a get-together between your friends and neighbors and your candidate, or just posting a yard sign supporting conservative candidates can be a very significant contribution to the success of a campaign.

3)  Pray.  Sometimes we choose this as a last resort; in fact, it is the single most important contribution we can make to seeing truth and justice conquer.  Not only that, prayer is one thing we can all do.  If we really believe that conservative values are most likely to result in Biblical care for the poor and in righteousness for our nation, we should be actively praying for the outcome of this election, and every election. 

So if you are feeling frustrated, discouraged, angry, disillusioned - don't complain.  DO SOMETHING!  Become an active participant in the process.  Give, volunteer, pray - do whatever you can to actually have an influence on what is happening - and the emotions will take care of themselves.

 Hugh Hewitt this morning has an excellent article on the media's attempt to sabotage the war against the terrorists.  Recently CNN showed a video which was given to them by an enemy insurgent in Iraq, a video showing the killing of an American soldier.  It would seem our media is so determined to harm the Bush administration that they are taking the enemies' side, even showing their propaganda for them.  And when they are called on the carpet by Congress, they have little to say in their own defense.

Hugh's article points out the similarities between what our media did during the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968 and what they are doing today.  His conclusion is well worth noting:

        This time, though, the enemy will not stay in the land 
        we leave.  9/11 showed us that, and if you want the 
        details, consult Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower. 

        It was possible for Democrats and the MSM to claim in 
         the late '70s that they had no idea what we had 
        abandoned southeast Asia to.

        No such claim can be made about the aftermath of a 
        defeat in Iraq or anywhere in the war against Islamist 
        fascism.

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is at it again, making statements that reveal how far he is from the thought processes of most civilized nations, and how unreasonable it is to hope that dialog might "bring him around."  According to this FOX News article, Ahmadinejad called Israel's leaders a "group of terrorists," and threatened any country that supports them.

        "You imposed a group of terrorists ... on the region," 
        Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. 
        "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from 
        these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain 
        tomorrow."

        "Nations will take revenge," he told a crowd of thousands 
        gathered at a pro-Palestinian rally in the capital Tehran.

        Ahmadinejad said Israel no longer had any reason to exist 
        and would soon disappear.

        "This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its 
        existence," he said.

        "Efforts to stabilize this fake (Israeli) regime, by the grace 
        of God, have completely failed... You should believe that this 
        regime is disappearing," he said.

Fascinating, isn't it, how the mainstream media, which was most anxious to broadcast Mike Wallace's interview with this dictator, and which quickly decided he was a "nice, reasonable" man, simply ignores statements like these that show he isn't so nice or so reasonable.

 According to ABC News today, a "non-partisan civic organization" says it has hacked into Chicago's voter database, finding Social Security numbers and dates of birth, and giving the hackers the option of changing any voter's status from active to inactive (thus keeping that voter from voting).

Fortunately, in this case it would appear the Web file they hacked into saves only to a copy of the file, not to the real thing.  However, this situation confirms some grave concerns I've had about the computerized voting machines:

1)  How is voter information kept secure?  Identity theft is a serious problem these days; are those in charge of collecting and keeping this information taking sufficient care to protect it?

2)  How do we keep hackers from changing voter status from active to inactive?

3)  How do we keep actual election results safe from those who would tamper with them?

4)  Given the possibility that election results might be hacked (and the worst-case scenario must always be considered), how do we detect the hacking - and how do we correct the results so they are accurate?

All of these are very significant concerns.  I find it difficult to trust that using this technology, those in charge of election results are going to be able to prevent these problems.

Some weeks ago I was reading a post on a different forum and came across some thoughts I found fascinating.  The author, John Holzmann, was describing a seminar he attended at which certain Christian workers in Muslim nations were discussing the cultural differences between Islam and Christianity.  John has since been kind enough to post those thoughts to his blog, John's Corner of the World.

The crux of the issue John brings up here is this:  Are Christian workers in Muslim nations creating artificial barriers to the gospel of Jesus Christ by insisting on cultural standards which are really unrelated to that gospel?  For example, in Muslim countries, what clothing do followers of Jesus (Isa in Arabic) wear to church?  What word is used to refer to God?  What day(s) of the week do we worship?  John mentions many other issues in his post as well.

It seems to me that these issues have been considered before in relation to Christian workers in other nations; however, I don't believe they have been thought through in detail in specific relationship with Muslim nations.  Perhaps some things are worth making an issue about, and some are not.  Is it possible that we are creating artificial barriers to the gospel and thus making enemies when we could be making friends?   

What I am saying here is that if we want to reach out to Muslims and lead them to Christ, we need to be very sure that the decision point is specifically about Jesus, not about what kind of clothes they wear, whether they take off their shoes when they go to church, or what day they worship.  By differentiating Christianity so drastically from Islamic culture, we make deciding to follow Jesus far more difficult than it should be, and we make it far easier for radicals to persuade Muslims that Christianity is evil.

In a different post, John shared this story which I think illustrates the type of approach I am considering here.

About 1995, he said, he began to see several young men (college students) come to Christ. Most of them were sons of very wealthy or powerful members of Lebanese society. One was the son of a billionaire businessman who was also a member of parliament (MP).

C was invited to a party where the MP was in attendance. The MP and C happened to meet, and the MP then invited C to call his secretary at the parliament and ask for an appointment. C followed through, was granted a 5-minute appointment, and, on the appropriate day, made his appearance.

As C was climbing the steps to the parliament, he noticed the billionaire MP walking DOWN the stairs with a bunch of aides. The MP noticed C, couldn’t quite remember where he had seen him or why he should know him, but greeted C and then invited C to his home. "Why don’t you come with me and let’s talk?"

Well, since the MP had obviously forgotten his appointment with C, and since a visit in the man’s home would be more personal and lengthier than a five-minute appointment at his office, C accepted.

A short while later, they found themselves sitting on the veranda of the man’s house, overlooking the Mediterranean. They had just sat down to coffee when C decided to open the conversation. "So. . . . How are things . . . [short pause] in Parliament?"

"Terrible," the man replied. "Terrible. There’s no hope for this country."

"No hope!" C exclaimed. "Why, you’re a leader in the country. Do you really feel there’s no hope."

"Yes. Our situation is hopeless here in Lebanon."

"I can hardly believe that," C tried to continue.

"So what do you do," the man asked.

I don’t know if it was the Holy Spirit or myself who replied here, C urged. I don’t want to saddle the Holy Spirit with foolish things that I might say, but I replied, "I’m a hope broker."

"A hope broker?" the man looked at him in astonishment. "What’s that?"

"I deal hope!" C confidently declared.

"Oh?" said the man. "And where do you get that?"

"I’ll be happy to talk about that in a few minutes," said C, "but first I’d like to hear more about Parliament."

"No, no!" cried the man. "Really. I must know. Where do you get this hope?"

Things were going a bit too quickly for C’s own comfort, so he said, "No. Truly. I will be happy to talk about that in a few minutes, but . . ."

The two men remained at a standoff for a couple more minutes until the man asked C, "HOW do you deal in hope?"

"Well. Okay," said C. "A friend of mine and I were talking a few years ago and we said, 'How can we help bring Christians, Muslims and Druze together here in Lebanon?' And we thought, 'Maybe we should get them to pray together for Lebanon.' So that’s what we did. We formed a number of groups around the country where Muslims, Christians and Druze get together each week and pray for Lebanon.

"That worked well for a while. But then we realized people were getting bored. Y’know, praying for Lebanon is okay, but what else might we do? . . . So then we thought, 'Maybe we could talk about something. Maybe some important subject like, say, Peace. Or Economics. Or something like that.'

"So the groups began to talk about important subjects.

"But then we realized that wasn’t working very well, so we thought, 'Maybe we should talk about an important person or what he taught. . . '"

"That’s a GREAT idea!" interrupted the MP. "And I know EXACTLY who they should talk about!"

"Yeah?!" said C.

"Yeah! GANDHI!"

"Well, yes," C replied. "Gandhi would make a great person to talk about, but that wasn’t who we decided to discuss."

"No?" said the man, a bit startled. He paused a moment. "Well, then . . . How about MOTHER THERESA!"

"Yes, Mother Theresa would have made a very worthy person to discuss as well," C agreed. "And both Gandhi and Mother Theresa are heroes of mine. But we thought of someone else. Someone both Gandhi AND Mother Theresa looked up to. Can you think of someone else?"

He paused while his companion thought. "I was afraid he might come up with NAPOLEON or something," C confessed to us. But about 30 seconds later, the MP’s face brightened: "Oh! I know! JESUS! ["Isa," in Arabic and/or as He is called in the Qur'an."

"Yes!" said C. "That is EXACTLY who we decided to talk about. . . . So, anyway, we’ve had these groups--there are probably 40 or so of them now--. . . we’ve had these groups praying for Lebanon and talking about Isa for several years now. . . . "

"Is there one in Parliament?" asked the MP.

"No. There’s not yet," said C.

"So why don’t you start one?"

"Well, first of all," said C, "I don’t know anyone in Parliament . . . besides you, of course. And besides, . . . "

"What if I were to start such a group?"

"That would be wonderful!" C exclaimed.

"How would I do that?"

"Well, you could call some of your friends . . . "

And the man did that.

The next week, they held their first meeting. C had laid down a few ground rules: "I will be happy to attend, but I WON’T LEAD. YOU must lead. You can ask me any questions you want BEFORE the meeting or AFTER the meeting. But during the meeting, I will remain silent. YOU need to lead."

"Well, I don’t know much about Isa," said the man. "Where can I find out about him?

"Oh, there are all kinds of places," said C.

"Yeah? Like where?"

"Oh, almost anywhere!" C replied. "There are all kinds of books written about him. I’m sure if you went to a local bookstore, you could find a few books. . . ."

"No, no! Where is the BEST place?"

"The BEST place?"

"Yes!"

"Well, the best place, I’ve found is in the Injil [Arabic/Qur'anic word for the New Testament]. There are four books there called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And, personally, I’d recommend the book of Luke."

"So where can I get an Injil?"

"I’m sure you can buy one in the bookstore." [C WASN’T about to tell the man that he "happened" to have a stash of about a hundred sitting back in his apartment!]

So the next week the MP came to the first meeting with his newly-purchased Arabic Injil and an additional English copy that C had given him. (The MP speaks eight languages fluently.)

The group met. They had a fine time. And at the end they asked--since this was another ground rule, that a different person should lead each week’s meeting: "Who will lead next week?" Another man volunteered. "And what shall we use as a source book to learn more about Isa?" --Another ground rule: "Any source you want."

The next week, the leader came with a book about Jesus that had been written by the Dalai Lama. And so they read that.

"It was very interesting," C told us. "The Dalai Lama had many wonderful things to say about Jesus." But at the end of the meeting, the group members looked at each other and said, "Y’know, the Dalai Lama just doesn’t match Luke in the Injil. Let’s read that again next week. . . . "

And so the group continued. They prayed for Lebanon and studied and talked about Isa.

About the 12th week, C said, he was sitting at the end of the table in the conference room in the parliament building where the group was meeting. He was facing the door to the room. The door had one of those small windows in it that permits people to look in (or you to look out). He noticed a man walk by, then back up and look in the window. The man left for a moment, then came back, peered in again, and eventually opened the door and walked in.

The meeting immediately stopped. Everyone stood up in somewhat embarrassed silence.

"What are you doing?" asked the man. --He was the political head of Hamas.

"We are praying for Lebanon and talking about Isa," said one of the men in the group.

"Really?" said the visitor. ". . . And who is your leader?"

Though he had specifically and vigorously refused to provide any leadership during the meetings, all the members of the group turned to C and pointed.

"Ah!" said the man. "Please come with me."

C followed him out of the room. "I felt like a child being led to the principal’s office," said C.

When they got to the Hamas leader’s office, the man invited him to sit down. "Please, tell me more about what you are doing. . . . "

So the two of them spoke for an hour or more.

At the end of the meeting, C got up to leave. "I have always kept in mind something that Christy Wilson once said. I have kept it in MIND, but I have rarely done it. Wilson said that, whenever he left a person, he always asked if he might pray for them. And for some reason, that is what I said to the Hamas leader that day: 'May I pray for you?'"

The Hamas leader threw his hands up: "EVERYONE can use some prayers! Please! Pray for me."

"Do you have any family members? A wife? Children?"

The man nodded. "Yes. A wife and five children."

"May I have their names? I would like to pray for them, too."

So C prayed. He said that normally he prays with his eyes open, but that day, maybe because he was scared, he had them fast shut. He opened them, however, just before he came to the end of his prayer.

He said tears were streaming down his companion’s face, down to the end of the man’s bushy beard.

After a few embarrassed moments as they said goodbye, C left.

*****

The next week, just before their prayer-and-discussion meeting ended, the Hamas leader showed up again. He asked C to come with him to his office, just like the week before.

At the end of their meeting, as C got up to leave and headed toward the door, the man said, "Wait! Aren’t you going to do that thing?"

"'That thing'? WHAT thing?" asked C.

"You know! That thing! That thing"--and the man stretched out his hands and rubbed his fingertips together, each hand’s thumb rubbing the fingertips--"that thing that felt so good!"

C looked at him with consternation. "'That thing that felt so good' . . ." Then with a look of sudden recognition: "You mean you want me to PRAY for you?"

"Yes! Yes!" cried the man. "That!"

"But YOU pray!" C protested.

"Yes. I pray. But it FEELS different when you pray!"

"'It FEELS different,'" C repeated rather dumbly. "Why would it FEEL different?"

"I don’t know. It just does!"

"All right," said C. "I will pray for you."

And so he did.

I raised this question in an earlier blog here, and it would appear I'm not the only blogger who's been considering it.  Why is it that the polls in every election seem so strongly in favor of Democratic candidates, but in almost every recent election, they have been so far off? 

Hugh's conversation with Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen, and his analysis of the Minnesota Star-Tribune poll, suggested one answer:  they are badly skewing the numbers of Democrats vs. Republicans polled.

And Powerline yesterday quoted Dafydd ab Hugh's analysis, "CAN the Polls All Be Screwy?  Of Course They Can."

Dafydd quotes from a White House press release:

                In short, between 1992 and 2004, only once did one 
                party enjoy an advantage as large as 4 points over the 
                other in party ID. But in recent polling samples used by 
                eight different polling organizations (USA Today/Gallup, 
                CBS/NYTimes, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/Opinion Research,
                 Newsweek, AP/Ipsos, Pew, and Time), the Democratic 
                advantage in the sample surveyed was never less 
                than 5 points. All these organizations conducted surveys 
                in early October.

His article is well worth reading, and while still recognizing that the Republicans are likely to lose some elections, he offers encouragement to those of us concerned about a Democratic landslide.