Cracks me up.

A surly ROBBIE WILLIAMS used his two minders to keep away autograph hunters. Everyone was agreed that the singer, charm personified on stage, was the biggest grouch behind the scenes. He paced up and down outside his dressing room to make sure all eyes were on him but snarled as anyone came near him.

He turned on the charm, however, while being interviewed by the BBC’s FEARNE COTTON. She blushed as he told her: ‘My name’s Robbie Williams. I’m single. I hear you’re newly single. Why don’t we get it on?’

She replied: ‘Can we save this for when the cameras are off?’ But he continued: ‘Make Poverty History and Get Robbie Laid – they’re the two messages we’ve got today.’

And there’s so much more.

via Right Mind

Read this journal entry by Andrew Peterson: Aedan and Jesse, Guns for Hire

Here’s something I wrote on his messageboard about it…

I don’t know why this is the case, but I just now read Andy’s latest journal. The one about his boys playing, that includes the same thoughts that seem to have inspired his song, Little Boy Heart Alive. It was good to read, as is typical with Andrew’s journals.

Then I thought about my house… When my girls play, there are no guns and swords and fighting.. it is dressup, and cooking and putting the dollie to sleep, or changing diapers. After contemplating the glory for a moment or two, my mind asked a few things.

I thought about why people would get upset about that… how my girls do girl things, and Andy’s boys do boy things. Why would that be something bad? The feminists/egalitarians in our world, that presently control so much cultural currency, would probably scream.

Not long ago my wife was browsing some book titles online, because the girls’ Grandma was going to join a book club for them. One book, Richard Scary’s What People Do All Day, prompted a feminista to comment, “It has good pictures, and my kids love it, but all the jobs have men working them, and all the women are wearing dresses!” She then made some comment about the human race having evolved passed that. My comment, though, was “We need to get that book”. And we did, and our girls love it.

But why is this the case? Why do people think it is wrong for women to wear dresses and be home-oriented? It’s because they have already assumed the inferiority of what is feminine. Feminist my foot… they are enemies of femininity. They say women can be liberated by being more like men. They are the ones downplaying the importance of a woman’s role. They assume that the traditionally masculine role is superior, and demand that women be allowed to play that role. But in doing this they belittle what is feminine. Women become equal with men, in their eyes, only when women become men.

I, on the other hand, hold to the biblical gender roles. I believe women are home-oriented and men and world-oriented. And I glory in that. I know that my wife does what she does around the house wonderfully, and she does it far better than I ever could. Because she is suited for it. In my view, her staying at home does not belittle her. She is not confined by it, in need of liberation.

A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. And they aren’t in competition. A man should do what is masculine, and a woman should do what is feminine.

What I really reeled about, after reading the jounal entry and thinking about Andy’s children compared to mine, is the work of the Kingdom they are preparing for. “I can’t help but think that it means that we were born for battle.” And my girls, with their dolls and play food, are training to do battle in the service of The King.

So. There ya go.

A family we’re friends with recently moved to Lynchburg, and in their previous location they were friends with a family that was big into patriarchy. Which is fine if it isn’t overboard.
But this family, it seems, was overboard. First, at their church, when they had any kind of fellowship meal, the patriarchs always went through the line first. Of course, the men go before the women, but all the boys were instructed to let the girls go ahead of them. Confusing?

Also, this family that our friends knew… one time they were visiting together. And a young boy came in, basically whining to his mom that his sister wouldn’t give him one of his toys. What did his mother instruct him to do? Punch her in the stomach. His sister wasn’t listening to what he was saying, so she told him to punch her.

Yikes!

A review of Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas by The Banty Rooster.
A taste,

Most interesting to me was an exchange which Assayas seems to not have intended – in fact, he quickly seems to “exit stage left.” But without prompting, Bono gives Assayas a lecture on his personal faith, what it is, what it means to him, and what Christianity is all about. It is straightforward, no rhetorical sleights-of-hand. Bono says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the sacrificial lamb who died on the cross for my sins, and that he is the only hope I have in this life. He goes further: “Good works will never get me into heaven.” When Assayas challenges him by asking, “Surely Jesus was a profound teacher, but isn’t that ‘son of God’ stuff a bit far-fetched?” Bono gives a brilliant dissertation on how one can simply not take Jesus as a “good moral teacher.” That’s precisely what the people of his day wanted, a prophet, a rabbi, and so forth. Jesus would have none of it. He claimed to be “Messiah,” even though it meant his death. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be, or he was a lunatic. And Bono rejects that he was a lunatic; he was the savior of the world.

Good stuff.