text:
Must Tithes Be Given Only To Church?
Filed under: Charity, Church, Giving
Good Question
Deserves Thoughtful Answer
Recently on Yahoo Answers a person (we'll call him Jerry) submitted a question about tithing:
"Does money I tithe have to be given to the church?"
The reason for the question had nothing to do with selfishness, materialism or bad financial management. His question was motivated by generosity.
The church Jerry attends was preparing to send kids to camp and there were a couple of kids who couldn't afford to go. Diverting Jerry's tithe to this need for three months would cover the expense and he wondered if that was legit. Would that still qualify as "tithing?"
He also made it clear that he wasn't questioning the rationale behind tithing (devoting ten percent of your income to God). In fact, he specified that only people who believed in tithing should respond and he further qualified by requesting only "respectful" answers. I almost laughed at the request. Having been scorched a few times by anti-tithers I wanted to put on a flack jacket before reading some of the responses. He had obviously faced a few also.
And sure enough one anti-tithing respondent spewed the venom we have come to expect: calling names, restating old arguments and generally abusing those who disagree. I wont' waste time responding.
The truth is, this is a good question. It speaks to one particular issue about tithing, "where are tithes to be offered" and it deserves a thoughtful answer.
To be clear the question here is not, should I give tithes to my church but rather must I give all my tithes only to my church. That is an important clarification. Even anti-tithing folks give money to the church they attend.
Some tithers, however, do argue that every cent of the tithe belongs to the church and they usually refer to this practice as "storehouse tithing." The argument is based mostly on one passage, Malachi 3:10 which literally says…
"Bring all the tithe into the storehouse…"
Storehouse Tithing
Tithers equate the storehouse in the Old Testament, the Temple, with the church in the New Testament. Anti-tithers debate this, suggesting that the entire Old Testament is obliterated by the New.
That idea, of course, can't be logically sustained. Christ's death did render ceremonial law nonessential but principles of truth and spiritual practices embedded in the law – and established before the law – are still relevant today. Churches still teach the truth, make judgments among believers and evangelize the world – all things done in the Old Testament – and should be funded in the same way, tithing.
So my answer to Jerry was the following:
- Suggest to the leadership of the church that some of the offerings, a percentage maybe, be placed aside for charitable purposes. We do that in our church and have provided financial assistance, with no strings attached, for people in and out of the church. Obviously subsidizing camp expenses for kids could be covered out of this fund. Do keep in mind that a suggestion like this may take time for implementation. You might even have to motivate it with sound explanations from a biblical perspective.
In the Old Testament a third of the tithe was given to the needy so there is precedent for the practice. That constitutes biblical justification for keeping a portion of your tithe aside, no more than a third, which could be used for charitable purposes.
In the Jewish communities they still practice this today.
Keeping some of the tithe to one side requires more bookkeeping but that develops skills that are useful.
- Another option is for the church to provide opportunities for the needy kids, or any others, to earn the money for camp. That might be better than giving it away. They will learn from the experience and probably get more out of camp. It is better to help them with "life issues" than just give them money.
You can, of course, give your tithe directly to individuals but in that case the money can't be claimed against your tax return. Tax deductible donations must be channeled through registered organizations such as churches or other nonprofits. So, if Jerry's church is not agreeable to his plan or he can't find another charity that is, he will have to weigh his decision against the loss of a tax deduction.
As a side note, this doesn't apply in every country. Some countries exempt offerings and some don't. For example, a few that allow exemptions are: USA, Canada, UK and New Zealand and a couple that don't are Australia and South Africa. Of those that do allow exemptions, the tax code is structured differently from one to the next.
The bottom line is this. "Storehouse Tithing" – Giving all your tithe only to your church – does not represent an absolute. It isn't like adultery. It is more an operational principle than a moral restriction. God is concerned about the poor and needy so allocating a portion of your tithe for such causes is very acceptable.
But, it is fair to say that a portion of your tithe should be given to your church. If you benefit from your church and the church maintains biblical ministries it is only reasonable to support it financially. Membership is synonymous with partnership and tithing is one way to express solidarity.
Obviously, if you are not happy with your church, you should find another one.
What do you THINK!AboutIt?
In Tithing, Douglas Leblanc provides much more than a narrow discussion on a traditional issue. It isn't the same old arguments presented the same boringly technical way.
Instead, and probably because he is "no theologian or exegetical writer," Douglas has found an intriguing way to cut to the real heart of the issue. He shares the experiences of eleven different couples and one lone Monsignor, all of whom endorse tithing for a very similar reason: selflessness.
35 Comments on Must Tithes Be Given Only To Church?
Mark Gomez on
Wed, 15th Sep 2010 6:41 pm
EnnisP on
Thu, 16th Sep 2010 6:21 am
midlands choice insurance on
Mon, 27th Sep 2010 12:14 am
Les Riker on
Mon, 27th Sep 2010 7:46 pm
EnnisP on
Tue, 28th Sep 2010 4:36 pm
Mark Gomez on
Tue, 28th Sep 2010 5:24 pm
Les Riker on
Tue, 28th Sep 2010 8:02 pm
EnnisP on
Wed, 29th Sep 2010 4:07 pm
EnnisP on
Wed, 29th Sep 2010 4:31 pm
Mark Gomez on
Wed, 29th Sep 2010 4:40 pm
EnnisP on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 6:06 pm
Mark Gomez on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 6:24 pm
EnnisP on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 6:39 pm
Mark Gomez on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 6:43 pm
EnnisP on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 6:53 pm
Mark Gomez on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 7:17 pm
EnnisP on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 9:01 pm
Mark Gomez on
Thu, 30th Sep 2010 9:22 pm
Les Riker on
Mon, 11th Oct 2010 6:11 pm
Dale Dyer on
Fri, 29th Oct 2010 9:17 am
EnnisP on
Fri, 29th Oct 2010 11:41 am
Branwen on
Sat, 6th Nov 2010 10:16 pm
EnnisP on
Mon, 8th Nov 2010 8:09 am
Chris on
Wed, 24th Nov 2010 1:06 pm
EnnisP on
Wed, 24th Nov 2010 2:34 pm
Mark Gomez on
Wed, 24th Nov 2010 4:34 pm
EnnisP on
Wed, 24th Nov 2010 5:48 pm
Mark Gomez on
Wed, 24th Nov 2010 6:16 pm
EnnisP on
Wed, 24th Nov 2010 8:26 pm
Mark Gomez on
Wed, 24th Nov 2010 10:24 pm
EnnisP on
Thu, 25th Nov 2010 2:54 pm
Mark Gomez on
Thu, 25th Nov 2010 3:35 pm
Jay on
Sat, 17th Dec 2011 5:48 pm
EnnisP on
Sat, 7th Apr 2012 5:48 pm
Larry Blecha on
Mon, 27th Apr 2015 4:03 am
As someone who's interacted with you extensively on tithing in the past, I'm surprised at your characterization of anti-tithers. I thought our discussions were fairly cordial. I tried to point out where you were wrong, but not necessarily attack you personally. It's a bit of an ad hominem to paint anti-tithers like that.
I just wanted to quickly interact with your complete misstatement of the grace giving position. You said,
that the entire Old Testament is obliterated by the New.
I'd challenge you to find where I or any other "anti-tither" ever claimed this. Here is what we would claim.
1. Christ fulfilled the law, not obliterated the law. This includes the ceremonial law and the sacrificial law.
2. In fulfilling the law, he did away with the "wall of separation" between Jew and Gentile, meaning that the gentile now has access to God and does not need to go through the Jewish nation to access God.
3. Since a person does not need to go through the Jewish nation, the laws related to Israelites as a nation are no longer binding on believers.
You do a disservice to your argument when you misstate our argument so egregiously.
Hey Mark. Nice to hear from you. It has been a while.
I admit that I get a little playful with some of those who disagree with tithing and am trying to shy away from it. Even this post originally included sarcastic remarks that I afterward felt were unnecessary and removed.
But, for sure these remarks are not aimed at you or those who approach giving the way you do. It was more for those who refer to people like me as liar, wolf in sheep's clothing and insinuate ulterior motives, suggesting tithers either intentionally twist Scripture or are duped. Not very kind. Some of the ones quoted the most and considered "representative" are the ones who most guilty.
All grace givers, like all tithers, aren't the same, so please know that you are not the target.
Great post! I want you to follow up on this topic
-Yours truly
It seems obvious that Jerry was being led by the Spirit to take care of these kids. It was weighing on his heart. And your advice (it seems) was no don't listen to your heart or the Holy Spirit, give it to the church and let them decide what to do or single the poor kids out and make them work for it. When the Spirit leads its usually not just about the obvious, he might have influenced the whole family by his gift. Hopefully he did.
I give regularly to the church.
Commanded tithing of course though, cannot be logically sustained. In Hebrews chapter 7, Paul is describing the path of change from the OT ceremonial law to the new law. In that chapter the term "tithe" is used 7 times and "law" is used 7 times. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. Why else would Paul be preaching to the Jews about change if they were to keep tithing like they always did? In other words if there was no need to change tithing then why was he preaching the change? It is totally illogical to teach that Hebrews 7:18 abolished every ordinance pertaining to the Levitical priesthood except tithing! Do you still keep the Sabbath? Is circumcision commanded? Sacrifice, grace, love, justice, and mercy are eternal principles. A tithe is not eternal.
Being led by the Spirit relinquishes the idea of tithing by the law as is said in Galatians 5:18. Either we are led by the Holy Spirit or not. If not, then we need a law telling us what to give. If we are, then we are lead by the Holy Spirit and he will bring us to a whole new dimension of giving that cannot be bound by earthly traditions or a temporary tithe. I have always heard preachers say give at least 10%. If people were instead taught to be open to the Spirit's leading, I believe they would all be giving more than 10%. Are we afraid the church won't be funded if left only to the Spirit's guidance. Do we have to command the first 10% and then count on the Spirit for extra.
Have a blessed Day
Thanks Les for the visit and the comment. A few questions/responses:
What about Jerry's situation makes the Spirit's leading obvious?
Could Jerry make a plan for the kids to earn the money without drawing attention to them?
Would it be good if the church leadership organized a "earn your way to camp" program for anyone who wanted to participate, enabling them to learn what it means to be productive and responsible, to work for the things they want?
Two concepts labored in the Tithe issue are Law/Command giving and Spirit/Grace giving. The law folks are accused of being at least inflexible and hard nosed (sometimes false prophets, wolves) and the grace folks are accused of being so open minded their brains fall out. I don't say that to accuse you. I don't know how you determine what the Spirit is leading you to do and you may very well have some solid principles which govern that. But making the observation about the two extremes is fair.
For me, there is something in between those two polarized positions.
I do think tithing is a principle that transcends the law. Even your reference to Hebrews would support that idea. Heb. 7 could easily be used to make an argument for the continuation of tithing as an operational principle, although I won't go into that now.
The question is, after considering all the Scriptures and factoring in some life experience, could God's Spirit lead a person to be a consistent tithing member of a church? I would say yes. I don't want to presume but I am guessing you would say no. One thing for sure, if the a person said they Spirit led them to tithe to a specific church we would both have to respect that.
Thanks for participating. Hope you'll come by again.
EnnisP, I don't understand why you feel your position is in between Law/Command and Grace giving. Please answer these questions to clarify your position:
Do you think the tithe is commanded for NT believers or not?
If a NT believer does not tithe, do you believe he is robbing God?
Should new believers be told that they have a duty to give 10% of their regular income to their local church?
I believe God will make you aware of needs of others that you are able to fulfill and they will weigh on your heart. I believed he was putting considerable thought into it, since he questioned whether or not he could use his "tithe" for that purpose. Maybe obvious wasn't the correct choice.
Do you believe he wasn't led?
Do you believe God guides our thoughts like Jerry was having or did the twins just get lucky someone noticed their situation?
Jerry or his church, could do anything. But were they willing to do that at that particular time. Jerry was willing to give the money.
Nothing wrong with a church having a program for kids to earn camp money. My kids did it for several years. Great idea.
I really didn't know there was a big debate about tithing until the last few days. Wasn't aware of the 2 extremes until you pointed them out. Thank you. Even though you tried to clarify it you went straight to brainless didn't you.
Answer to your question. YES
What are your guide lines for knowing when God leads you?
I don't understand in between the 2. Is it?
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver as long as it's at least 10%.
Yes, I believe tithing is a command but wouldn't deal with it differently to any other command in the NT. I don't think we have a duty to focus on any particular command at the expense of others.
Tithing isn't the first thing I mention to new believers and, in fact, I have found that many people will enquire about guidelines for giving if allowed enough time to digest what is going on in the church.
We just had a person approach a board member specifically asking what they should give and qualified the question with "I don't want a wish washy answer." No lie. That really happened.
Obviously, I don't have a problem suggesting a 10% target amount and, yes, I think any time we manage our lives differently to established principles, God, and we, will suffer losses (are robbed).
What I don't do is make demands. It's kind of like "husbands love your wives."
Is that a command? Yes. Will losses occur if it isn't obeyed? Yes. Should we encourage husbands to follow this command and give instructions on how to do it intelligently, giving as much philosophical motivation as we can? Yes.
But, I doubt any husband or potential tither will be helped if we pound them from the pulpit each Sunday with regard to any command.
I will say this. The ministries of many tithing proponents have been heavily weighted toward the demanding / hounding approach to tithing and that is distasteful. That is not my style. We might possibly agree on that.
Where we disagree, I think, is I won't throw out the concept because it is abused by some.
Do I believe Jerry was led of the Spirit? To be honest, I don't know. I think he was being sensitive in a good way and I appreciate that but I wouldn't say you need the Spirit to recognize those kinds of needs. At least, I hope we can see these things without requiring the Spirit's prompting.
But, that wasn't his question. Spirit led or not we should never respond convulsively. He was wisely asking how to meet this need, not assuming anything he did was OK.
Being prompted by the Spirit to do some particular thing doesn't necessarily mean we know exactly how to do it without consultation, learning and maybe a little experimenting.
If a fifteen year old says God is leading him or her to be a medical doctor we would expect that declaration to be followed with the pursuit of a specific learning path.
What I suggested to Jerry were ideas on how to meet the need wisely and carefully. And for me the best choice is always organized church efforts and I think he should at least try to convey his feelings to church leadership.
It was because the church didn't have this kind of policy in place that I said using a person's tithe on the odd occasion to help someone out is not an act of disloyalty.
But, even then it might not be the best plan for the kids.
Fair enough. I think your defense of tithing as a command is incredibly lacking since it doesn't appear as a general command anywhere in Scripture. And I don't think any of us throw it out because its been abused, but rather because we find no warrant for it in Scripture.
As far as someone in your church not wanting a "wishy-washy" answer, I don't much care what they want but rather what the Bible teaches. I tell those in my congregation to give as they feel led, according to the grace that God has given them and to do it regularly and sacrificially. If someone insists I be more specific and give them an actual amount, I tell them the Scripture doesn't dictate an amount. I don't care if they think that is wishy-washy. I care what the Bible teaches.
A lot of your arguments seem to be about the benefits of tithing. Those are not arguments that can establish something as a Biblical command binding on Christians. That's where the focus of the discussion should be.
Hey Mark. You seem to be a bit agitated.
Not agitated. I just feel like you've failed to mount any kind of Scriptural argument for tithing. You throw out things like "there's more about tithing than there is about the trinity" or "people don't want wishy-washy answers" or "I'm not going to throw it out because its been abused", but you've still failed to show us where God commands people generally to tithe. If you're trying to establish that God is commanding NT believers to tithe then you need to show where the Bible says it. Not your ideas about solidarity or specificity or general avoidance of wishy-washyness. Those aren't Biblical arguments.
Most of those questions I've answered in previous posts but since you brought it up, there are more statements about tithing than there is about the trinity. We both believe in the Trinity don't we?
But that's not a Biblical argument. The word tithe appears more often than the word Trinity, but so does sacrifice and circumcise and temple and altar, etc. That doesn't mean that a NT believer is commanded to sacrifice and circumcise and use a temple. This is a perfect example of your misuse of Scripture.
I don't mind your arguments Mark and you gave some in that last comment but accusing me or anyone else of misusing Scripture is presumptuous.
I'm sure there are many very sincere people who disagree with both of us but not because they misuse Scripture. That isn't the only reason people come to a different conclusion than you or I and there are probably other issues we don't agree on.
Regarding the "command" issue, I believe and have said in previous posts that if anything Jesus should have specifically repealed the practice if it was to be discontinued. He do that.
Since ceremonial law didn't initiate the principle then the annulling of the law doesn't rescind.
If you disagree I respect that and will gladly consider your arguments but would rather you left off claims of misuse.
I'm headed for small group. Talk later.
My assertion that you are misusing Scripture is based on the fact that you are telling people that Scripture commands them to do something that is does not. You still haven't shown any Scripture where God gives a general command to tithe. You can't say that it is in place because Christ didn't repeal it, because you haven't established it in the first place. There's nothing for Christ to repeal. And even if there was, then the Jerusalem council repealed it when they met about what parts of the law the NT believers should be asked to keep. After their meeting, the tithe was not on the list of things they were asking people to do.
And its not part of the ceremonial law. I never said it was. I said it was part of the national law specific to Israel. And since I am not a member of national Israel, I don't have to pay tithes for the purposes of supporting the Levites, the poor and widows, and general feasting. And since the national law in Israel is the only place we see God telling specific (not general) people to tithe, I don't infer that people outside of national Israel are commanded to tithe. Rather they are asked to give according to certain principles laid out in the NT. But you don't think those are specific enough, so you fall back on a word that is found in the Bible that means tenth, and you misconstrue Scripture to support you unfounded demands of specificity.
Can we agree to disagree then?
Well, I guess we'll have to. I'd be interested in having a discussion regarding tithing using the Bible as primary source, but until then, yeah, we agree to disagree because our methodology for deriving the commands of God is fundamentally different.
Mark 10 Ennis 1
I can see both points of view. My girlfriend is a Seventh-day Adventist and I'm not, and I've had some strong discussions with her over the Tithe. She was raised to believe in it because her parents and her Church pushed it as a sacred obligation to please God. And I was raised a Baptist, but later on in my 20s joined the SDA Church. And I went initially went along with the Tithe. But then the "tithe abuse" started happening to me. The Church treasurer was a gossip and told the other church members the amount I tithed. And then at the beginning of the new year I got a letter from the Church conference itemizing my tithe and a little memo that read "THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE IRS." All because I stupidly wrote my name and address on the tithe envelope and my tithe check had my name/address on it. And I remembered that Jesus said to do your alms in secret and not to be like the Pharisees who announce with a trumpet the amount they drop into the Temple coin box. And so I got mad at some busybody in Church telling everyone of the embarrassing 10 percent I tithed (I'm a poor churchmouse). I kept paying tithe but put different pseuodnyms on the tithe envelope: Superman, Batman, Mickey Mouse, Buggs Bunny. And legally, the church treasurer has to keep a record of the name of the "tither" per requirements for non-profit donations. I'm sure they did not. After dealing with this issue of "tithe abuse" and the Church finding out about and ridiculing my "two mites", I gave it up.
For me, informing the goverment about a private, sacred trust was like breaking down the separation of Church and State. Isn't there an option that I can choose, such as checking a box, "NO, I DO NOT WISH TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT." They don't give you the right to choose to be a silent partner. I need for the Tithe to be private. But the local Church blabbed it, the regional conference and the national conference counted it and put me on their mailing list for "more giving beyond your Tithe", and now the government was involved, and everyone in Church just assumed it is their business. It just makes me think of how the money changers were counting a "tenth" of this and a "tenth" of that, and if someone like Jesus overturned the Church treasurer's table and made her lose count, the Church would be out for blood. I know, because one time I opened the wrong door in Church and saw the treasurer counting the tithe and offerings – during Church service – and I wonder, if I had overturned her table, would the minister or head deacon have called the police? Surely.
So many people in the U.S. pay tithe and then claim the Tithe as a deduction on their income tax return. And so I asked my SDA Church friends, "So, do you pay tithe on that tax return check the govenment sends you?" And they say "No! I already paid tithe on it!" But I never did claim the deduction. Never. It made me feel like I was profitting on something that the Lord meant us to give as a sacrifice.
And so, I have a different reason for objecting to the Tithe. It's the one Jesus gave. Do your giving to the Lord in secret. It's between you and God. You cannot even claim it on your tax return because some IRS agent will be looking at it. Third party involvement is forbidden, according to Christ. And that's the Lord's command. Matthew 6.
Thanks for sharing Dale. Sorry for the troubles you've had. It does sound like there are several abuses occurring in your church situation: gossip, abuse of privacy, judgment, financial manipulation, etc. none of which anyone could agree with, tither or not.
I know the SDA's do take a very legalistic approach to Christian living. No criticism intended, everyone must decide for themselves but given your background, why don't you move church?
I'm curious though. Is it a law that churches must provide offering information to the government for each member?
I am a US citizen but have lived in South Africa for many years so I'm not up to date on every IRS issue (the person who prepares my returns tells me what to do, I do it). But, as I recall each member made the decision to report their offerings and only if they wanted to take the deduction. Otherwise they could keep the information to themselves. Is that not how things work now?
Thanks again for the comment. I do appreciate you sharing and your point of view.
we think that the whole OT was destroyed? how absurd. that would eliminate the 10 commandments, the ideas of the 10 commandments is found all through the New test. do a little bible research tithes was never money. oh they did not have money those days? not true at all. in Malachi who was robbing from God? read the full context of the first 4 chapters, it was the PRIESTS who were being accused by God. the tithes was always livestock and food to help the priests but mostly for imigrants, widows and orphans. tithes was part of the Mosaic law for Israel. no where in the NT is there a teaching or commandment for gentile Christians to tithe. the system in the modern church today is no where near that of the bible. the teaching of GIVING is very clear in the NT. 2 Cor 9:7(NIV). the widows of Heaven mentioned in Malachi refer to RAIN. closely read full context. examples of this is found in Gen 7:12 & Gen 8:2. biblical tithing was once a year and another was once every 3 years that the Levites were in charge of. are there Levite priests in the Gentile Christian church today? of course not.
All of your arguments have been stated by many already without substantiation. What would be helpful is telling us what you do believe, being careful to give enough detail to answer the following questions:
Should giving be consistent and regular and, if not, why not?
Exactly how does one determine how much to give?
Where should these offerings be given?
Under what conditions should a person not give?
Hi Ennis
Jesus says tithing IS a 'matter of the Law'…as does Heb 7:5
Jesus says that if we change one 'jot or tittle of the Law we will be 'least in the kingdom of Heaven' Mat 5:18-19. Deut 4:1-2 warns those who would change God's Law…as does Rev 22
By teaching 'storehouse money tithing today' you change GOD's Law:-
1) Tithes were only ever FOOD (Lev 27:30 and 32, Mal 3:10, Mat 23:23)
2) Tithes were only ever to be received by Levites (under a covenant Numbers 18:21-23)
3) Tithes were only to be given to people who had NO INHERITANCE in the land (9 refs..incl Numbers 18:21-24)
4) Tithes only applied to Israel (Lev 27:1 and 34)
5) Tithes were brought by the LEVITES to the temple storehouse (NOT the people (Number 18:25-29 and Mal 2:1 and 9)
6) Tithes were also to be EATEN by the giver Deut 14:22-27
With these severe warnings anyone who teaches tithing today is making their lifes ministry of NIL value
Tithing as taught by most churches is at best deception …but probably closer to extortion
Makes you wonder how they managed to tithe before the law.
Once again, there was no mandatory tithing before the law. Only voluntary giving. Which is what we teach.
Very little was mandatory before the law but people in-the-know did customarily, consistently and regularly the right thing. That included tithing.
"Voluntary" sounds like "sloppy" or "inconsistent" or "irregular" or "impulsive" or "emotional" or "according to circumstance" or how many other ways can I say it.
A life of faith, and that would include giving, will at least be reliable and uniform.
But once you put dimensions on giving (like answering the questions I posed in comment 23), or any other area of the Christian life, it becomes a discipline and that looks and feels too much like "law" to be thought of as evidence of faith.
Once again you're inserting things into Scripture that aren't there. Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils of a battle to Melchizedek. That is not tithing as you teach it, despite the fact that the KJV regrettably uses the word tithe.
I checked the thesaurus on "voluntary" and sloppy, inconsistent, irregular, impulsive, emotional, and according to circumstance weren't in there. It seems like you're realizing your argument is weak so now you're just making stuff up. Voluntary did have the synonyms autonomous, deliberate, free, gratuitous, unconstrained, unforced, etc. I like these a lot better than yours. But when you don't have an argument I guess it would be hard to not just paint your opponent any way you want without evidence.
Why will a life of faith be reliable and uniform? I think I can agree with reliable, but uniform? What do you mean by that? It seems that once again you're just making things up based on your own opinions in order to bolster your position, which is incredibly weak to begin with.
I think spiritual disciplines are a good thing, but they don't need to be defined down to the exact amount for me to engage in them. I should read my Bible as a spiritual discipline, but how long, how often, which parts? Bible reading is a spiritual discipline in my life, but I don't have it codified as a specific amount and I definitely don't teach my congregation to follow a specific amount.
As far as your questions go, we've already answered most of them. We said giving should be regular, sacrificial, cheerful, and designed to meet a need. I should give in support of the local church because a pastor has the right to live off of His labor in the Word. The exact amount isn't specified. You have such a big problem with this as if people won't know how to give and the churches budget will be in disarray. Yet, we've emphasized that this is not the case in any church that we have been a part of or know of that practices grace giving. The last church we were at never talked about giving and viewed the tithe as an OT command that was not binding on NT believers. Halfway through the year, they already had a $30,000 budget SURPLUS! Every other church that I've known that practices the same kind of giving has reported similar results.
Ten percent is a consistent amount not an exact amount and you really didn't answer the questions. Your kind never do.
A Thesaurus!?!?
If you want to argue budgets go comment on a different blog. The only people who mention it here are people like you. It is not the issue and I have never said it was.
Wait, how is ten percent not an exact amount? Isn't that your whole argument, that people won't know how much to give, would "be thrown in the dark", would be "sloppy" and "inconsistent", etc.? So they must be given an exact amount which you define as a tenth of increase. And we did answer the questions, you just don't like the answer. The answer is that there must be wisdom involved where specifics are not spelled out, but that is not good enough for you.
You were the one who said that "voluntary" sounds like a lot of things that voluntary is not actually synonymous with. You are importing ideas into our view that are not really there. I don't know why you think encouraging voluntary, regular, sacrificial, cheerful giving would be sloppy, inconsistent, etc. That is just your opinion, but we've provided examples from our own ministry experience that show that it is not the case, but you keep trotting it out nonetheless. Please stop making that argument.
And a while ago you made the comment, "Any person could decide to give ten percent of their income regularly to meet the ongoing needs of their church and any church could do all the things you mentioned better if the members were committed to giving in that fashion." You've never retracted it despite the fact that we've provided examples to disprove your statement. I'll stop talking about budgets, both church and personal, when you retract statements like this and stop using adjectives like sloppy, inconsistent, and irregular to describe our position.
You didn't do well in mathematical word problems, hey? I give a different "exact" amount every month but it is always 10%.
If you still have your thesaurus handy look up the word contrary.
It's funny you should say that as I happen to be a math teacher. If I take 10% of something, I get an exact number (with some rounding for monetary word problems). Try to follow the argument. I'll try to use another word that is fairly synonymous in this discussion. You are arguing that God commands a specified amount. Or to be even more precise, a specified proportion. We are saying that He doesn't.
As far as contrary goes, I apologize if I've been obstinate, stubborn, or contumacious, but you are painting my position of giving dishonestly by describing it as sloppy, inconsistent, irregular, impulsive, etc. It's hard to have an actual argument with you because you lose track of the argument so easily. You make a statement and when we argue against your statement, you respond with nonsense like "A Thesaurus?!?!" without even attempting to understand the point we're trying to make. I am just baffled at why you would hold so tightly to a doctrine that has no basis in Scripture.
Hello all,
I've been reading your posts and I have learnt a lot from all of you, thank you all, I have something to say and may God lead me as I write, cuz I consider myself less than you all, but the little I understand, I understand this way:
The bible says that the old testament is a shadow of things to come, God gave the law to the Jewish nation because, then, Christ had not yet come and man was a sinner by nature, so some form of guidiance was needed to show the man how to leave in relationship to his society and God. However, after the coming of Christ, Man is now a new creature through Christ and should do what is right naturally, living by the Spirit.
My point is this, if the law said "do not kill", the new creature in Christ should not strive to keep that because he is a new creature, created to be like God, living to love God and his neighbor, thereby fulfilling the law and not doing away with it. He does not strive to follow the law, rather he lives to please God. In thesame way, the old testament commanded the jew to give a tenth, (although Abraham did this before the law was given), now the new creature should know that it is His/Her responsibilty to give a good amount of His/Her income for the work of God, and the poor. And should do this consistently as God blesses Him/Her.
And I do believe that God will always bless the consistent giver. If a Church calls this giving tithe and reminds its members to pay the minimum amount, I really do not judge that there is anything wrong with that, in much thesame way, a person can still decide to give above this ten percent, the most important thing is that we do not always give too little, but rather we are cheerful givers, and generous too.
As David said that He would not give to God what would cost him nothing. This is an issue of giving to God, it should not be argued over, rather we should seek to give more for the work of God, may God help us all.
Good point Benny but I have a couple of comments.
One, I am assuming you believe in tithing – giving ten percent of your adjusted income to God. I say "adjusted" because some of the tithe given in the OT covered expenses that our taxes go to today and because of that it is only fair to reduce the tithe by that amount. I wrote about that here. Since many people use the word "tithe" to refer to any offering of any amount, given regularly or not, it almost needs to be qualified.
Two, if you aren't happy with the church you attend then maybe you should find a new one. Many churches are very effective at both evangelism and helping the needy.
And really, withholding the tithe means the church is doing the giving anyway and probably suffering for it.
I believe the Tithe was done away with the percentage and replaced by the Spirit of Giving in the new Testament. In the new testament we believe in Jesus on the Cross through faith. When we believe in Jesus we become a believer in the Body of Jesus (Church) and as believers we are guided by the Holy Spirit not commandments.Everything we own including ourselves as a temple of God is utilized by the direction of the Holy Spirit. We give according to how t he Holy Spirit directs us and when we do God gives us back increase. If God is pleased with a particular Denomination/Man assembled church he will guide the Child of God to give generously and then provide increase to give even more causing the Denomination to explode in growth. If God is not pleased with the position of a Denomination it will not grow and have problems paying it's electric bills. God's loving Spirit the Holy Spirit will guide you in a spirit of joyful giving with increase to accomplish God's will or plan. So it is God's will not our own or a Denomination that decides the giving. In conclusion we are not ruled by an outdated tithe commandments or Denominations but the will of God by faith in Christ..
Speak your mind...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!


text:
|« Back to Article
Hispanic heritage takes the field
Southside Reporter : September 30, 2013
Photo By Courtesy photoMembers of San Antonio's Ballet Folkórico Festival are seen on the AT&T Stadium's jumbotron as they perform on the field just before a Dallas Cowboys-St. Louis Rams game Sept. 22. The pre-game show was part of a Cowboys' celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month.
For the seventh year, San Antonio's Ballet Folkórico Festival participated in a show before a Dallas Cowboys game in celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month.
"It's a privilege that the Dallas Cowboys have invited us up there," said Ballet Folkórico Festival director Bruce Gonzales about the Sept. 22 performance. "The roar of the crowd is always great."
More than 80,000 fans were at AT&T Stadium in Dallas for the game, where the Cowboys marked a resounding victory over the St. Louis Rams, 31-7.
The San Antonio troupe had 32 of its dancers perform at the show, and they were featured on the stadium's "jumbotron," billed as one of the world's largest high-definition television screens.
Ballet Folkórico Festival, which offers classes for 4-year-olds to adults, is celebrating its 20th year.
Ballet folkórico is the folk dance of Mexico, which blends its indigenous and European roots. Dancers in colorful, traditional costumes entertain audiences at a myriad of events throughout the year.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Botanical Jewelry with Simon Teakle
Monday, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30am
Simon Teakle Fine Jewelry, at 4 Grigg Street,, Greenwich, CT 06807
Members $45, Non-Members $55
Just in time for making our holiday wish lists, we are thrilled to be invited to the new Simon Teakle Fine Jewelry showroom where he will wow us with his collection of new and antique botanical jewelry. As always Simon will enlighten us with his deep knowledge of the world's finest jewelry and entertain us with his wit and charm. We will meet at his Grigg Street store, next to Diane's Books.


text:
AU Shippin' Out November 20-23: Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed
Take two for Assassin's Creed.
Take two for Assassin's Creed.
Tabula Rasa, PS3 Stranglehold, 360 Virtua Fighter 5, Battalion Wars 2, and many others fill up the US Halloween week release slate.
No forum topics for Barbie as The Island Princess yet. Want to start us off? Create a new topic.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment


text:
Sapphire v7 Visual Effects for Avid DS from GenArts is an advanced video effects plug-in package with over 2,500 effects and transitions presets based on over 250 effects. The presets are completely adjustable and fast-rendering, and the effects can be blended with one another. A CUDA-capable NVIDIA card is required for fast rendering.
Sapphire integrates directly into Avid DS (version 10.5 only) and provides on-screen widgets for many of the effects. Sapphire is multiprocessor-enabled, and the effects are resolution independent and compatible with any resolution supported by the host program. All Avid-platform versions of Sapphire render in real-time and have a PanAndZoom feature not available on other platform versions.
- PanAndZoom
- A new tool that allows you to pan, zoom, and rotate large image files. It also has stylistic options to add drop shadow, vignette, and MotionBlur.
- Beauty
- A new effect that leverages the new EdgeAware technology to beautify talking heads by softening and color correcting skin tones.
- EdgeAwareBlur
- Powered by our new EdgeAware technology, this effect allows you to blur while preserving detail.
- Advanced Sharpen
- The Sharpen tool has been updated with the ability to sharpen features of different amounts and sizes for increased flexibility and control.
- LensFlare
- Now enhanced with faster rendering, animation options, atmospheric noise, and presets to duplicate popular real-world lenses.
- Zap
- Updated to include 3D rotation and the option to follow a path, giving you the option to control the shape it takes.
- MotionBlur
- Has been added to many effects, giving them a more realistic look.
- New Transitions
- FilmRoll and CardFlip are two new dynamic transitions with multiple controls to diversify the output. FlutterCut has been enhanced with more options including new controls and color options.
- Faster
- Added GPU support for more plug-ins and an optimized GPU code to provide up to a 20% speed increase per effect.
- More Presets
- Over 2,500 presets.
- Preset Sharing
- Now you can share presets across host platforms.
- Real Time Rendering
- Many effects now have real time rendering.
- Over 250 effects
- On-screen UI widgets for many effects
- Resolution-independent
- Multiprocessor-enabled
- 16-bit image format support
- Intuitive user interface
- AVX2 support
- Offline HTML and PDF documentation included
- RGBA support
- Single click application to titles and keys
- Sequences with old Sapphire versions can be automatically promoted
- Over 40 drag and drop transitions including SwishPan, DissolveDefocus, and WipeBubble
- Stylize and color-correction effects including FilmEffect, HalfTone, Vignette, BleachBypass, and Cartoon
- Create unique natural and organic lighting using rays, lens flare, glare, glint, and glow effects
- Most effects are NVIDIA CUDA GPU-accelerated to provide performance enhancements
- 64-bit enabled -- expanded memory capabilities
- All effects use full floating point processing for internal processing and high image quality


text:
Search the Archives
Shop By Gallery49ers Pride Players Levi's Stadium
Shop By ProductPrints and Frames Wall Art Personalized Photos Canvas
Home > Item# 986620
Share This Photo:
© San Francisco 49ers
"The photos I purchased are a "heart tie". I am currently serving with the US Army on active duty at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. My niece is a freshman this year and is playing on the Women's Soccer team. The photos will go in my office. It is my opportunity to "stay connected", follow the team and be very proud of Kelly as a scholar/athlete."
– Jennifer L from Fort McCoy, Wisconsin
Product Options
Best Sellers...


text:
|Sign in With Your Burrp Id!
|Register With Burrp!
|Sign in With Your Burrp Id!
|Register With Burrp!
Home > Chennai Dessert Shops > Chennai > Mylapore Dessert Shops > Emilio's Gelateria
4 Reviews / 4 Ratings
Your rating
Write a Review
* You will not receive leaderboard points if word count is less than 60. Word Count : 0
November 22,2009
July 20,2009
Latte at the North Pole!
So here I was straying from my regular beat of Besant Nagar. Mylapore for a meeting and CIT colony to see the Doc and I see an Emilio's there!
I thought I will have my hazelnut cone and entered there and was surprised they have seating! So I settled down and was given three menus. One food. One their Gelato , coffee and tea menu and a 'special gelato creations' menu.
I chose a concotion called ' Latte at the North Pole"! Coffee gelato + chocolate gelato + nuts + cream( which I gently scooped out!) etc.
Very interesting. Nicely presented.
Will I go there again? Yes, if I am in the vicinity.
They have coffee , so that is reason enough.
So now I head back to Besant Nagar and start on the rest of the eating places. Would like to complete it by the end of the month.
February 13,2009
Great Gelato
I first tasted the Italian Gelato at this place. I liked it better than any ice cream available in Chennai. I always used to like desserts from Eden's menu. There are tempting. But Emilio's Gelatos are even better in content, taste and form. Natural feel of these Gelatos is admirable. After I tasted Gelato here, I tried at few other, including one at City Center Mall, but they taste very artificial and lack the originality.
Emilio's Ferrero Rocher is excellent. But I love Hazelnut and Melone flavors.
This place is centrally located, but is small. Their website is designed brilliantly.
Write a Review
* You will not receive leaderboard points if word count is less than 60. Word Count : 0


text:
items tagged with Steve Martin
Written By: Mike Schulz
Section: Movies
Category: Reviews
2015-03-28 22:22:08
Any horror fan who came of age with Halloween, Friday the 13th, and their many sequels knows the ironclad rule regarding imperiled teens: If they have sex, they're gonna die. So maybe you'll have to be of a certain generation – or have an affinity for a certain breed of shocker – to get the most from It Follows, writer/director David Robert Mitchell's intensely witty, pretty damned scary tale of a young woman diagnosed with a literally murderous, and ambulatory, STD.
Read More About Lay It Forward: "It Follows," "Get Hard," And "Home"...
Written By: Mike Schulz
Section: Movies
Category: Reviews
2013-04-01 16:52:15
If you handed a box of crayons to a group of eight-year-olds with action figures, they'd probably come up with a more entertaining storyline for G.I. Joe: Retaliation than the one we're stuck with, which is your standard blockbuster nonsense about a megalomaniac's plan for world dominion and the crack team of well-armed, quip-ready hotshots attempting to thwart him. In a welcome surprise, though, director Jon M. Chu's follow-up to 2009's G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra is, unlike its forebear, quite a bit of zippy, throwaway fun, a fast-moving and happily unpretentious diversion with jokes, and good ones, obviously written specifically for viewers well over the age of eight.
Read More About Gee, I Didn'T Hate "Joe": "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" And "The Host"...
Written By: Mike Schulz
Section: Movies
Category: Feature Stories
2012-01-01 12:00:00
Every January, I share my numerical rankings of the 10 most enjoyable movies I saw during the previous year. I do not, however, share my numerical rankings of all the other titles I caught during those 12 months, as such a list would, I think, be hopelessly arbitrary, terribly self-indulgent, and something that only a person with too much time on his hands would attempt.
Let's get cracking, shall we?
Read More About ... And "Jack & Jill" Came Tumbling After: 150 Movies Not On 2011's 10-Favorites List...
Written By: Mike Schulz
Section: Movies
Category: Reviews
2011-10-16 21:53:45
It was probably inevitable that Paramount would get around to remaking Footloose, and once it did, the studio probably could've done worse than to hire director Craig Brewer for the job, despite a filmography (Hustle & Flow, Black Snake Moan) not exactly bursting with lighthearted confectionary fare. Yet considering that 27 years have passed since Kevin Bacon first screamed, "Let's da-a-a-ance!!!" to a grain mill full of eager young hoofers, shouldn't this new Footloose have been... I dunno... at least a slight improvement on the original?
Read More About Two Left Feet: "Footloose," "The Thing," And "The Big Year"...
Written By: Mike Schulz
Section: Movies
Category: Feature Stories
2010-03-08 19:26:14
All told, I thought this year's Academy Awards telecast was awfully satisfying, and I'm not saying that because I predicted 18 out of 24 categories correctly.
Yup. 18 out of 24.
Tying my personal best.
And three of my incorrect guesses were in the short-film categories, where no one knows what the hell is going on.
But I digress.
Read More About All About Steve. And Alec.: Notes On The 2010 Academy Awards Telecast...
There are 30 items tagged with Steve Martin. You can view all our tags in the Tag Cloud


text:
Danny Carey
View Single Post
Posts: n/a
Re: Danny Carey- Genius or completely insane?
tool were my favourite band for ages, and when lateralus came out i couldn't believe my luck because it was - and still is - one of the most fun albums i have ever attempted to learn... the grudge and ticks & leeches would have to be the most challenging songs on the album, and i love the title track.
as far as tool's sense of humor goes, it has never really cracked me up the way a band like primus have... but i guess it is pretty funny how so many people take tool so seriously.
i certainly used to for a while until someone i know said how funny he thought tool were: then it kind of dawned on me
"...The resulting rhythm and gateway summoned a daemon he has contained within "the Lodge" that has been delivering short parables similar to passages within the Book of Lies..."
ha ha.. yeah
i think danny carey is both completely insane and a genius because you would have to be insane to be as creative a player as he is


text:
Search Everything
Find your off-campus login info!
Search our FAQ
Research Guides List (A-Z)
- Check the complete A-Z List of our research guides.
- Click for the complete Database A-Z List
Search GBC Catalogue
Find books, videos, print journals and more!
Receive Email Updates
Receive email alerts whenever guides of interest to you are published.
Register for Email Alerts
Register for Email Alerts
Ask a Librarian Online
|If we are offline,please email
your research question to:askgbclibrary


text:
Hold down Control (PC) or Command (Mac) key + mouseclick to select more than one option
|Avg. Dinner Entrée
|Greater than $25
|$18.01 - $25
|$12.01 - $18
|$7.01 - $12
|Less than $7
Posted by Maria on 09/23/2012
great food, thought it is small portion but nonetheless amazing food.
Posted by Joanna on 09/17/2012
People who like this place obviously have never really eaten Thai before. The food is overpriced and mediocre at best. Sadly, because it is the only Thai restaurant in the area, it will never go away. The sauces are too saucy, they smother the food in bland sauces. The spices are either overblown, or not there. There is no subtle flavor. I am baffled as to why it ever has people eating there. The actual venue is nice enough and the staff is polite, but the food is sub par and overpriced. Hell's Kitchen is just 15 minutes away with much better, and cheaper, Thai.
Posted by JRheights on 05/29/2012
I've lived in the Hood for many years and was excited when this place opened a couple of years ago. I love Thai - and this place hasn't let me down once. Everything from the friendly staff to the spicy food and the flexibility of their dishes.
Posted by Anonymous on 04/22/2012
I've never had even a little bit of a bad experience with this place. Delivery and dining in has alway been very positive for me. Looove the food, love the ambiance. Try it for yourself before believing the negative reviews. Please keep these guys in business!!
Posted by Albert D on 03/16/2012
This place is ALWAYS consistent. we order almost weekly, and honestly, it is superb. We eat in a few times every couple of months, and it is always plated beautifully, served piping hot, and tastes perfectly fresh. The bonus that it is a clean, well decorated, intimate, and tasty place in the Heights? Perfect. I really can't imagine what people are complaining about.
Posted by anonymous on 03/04/2012
I too don't understand what everyone is complaining about? I love Thai food and have been to many places around the city. This rates right up there with Room Service and Yum Yum in my book. the delivery portions are huge and always consistent. The plating when you dine in a beautiful especially for the neighborhood. I wish more people would support restaurants like this so we can continue to get better quality places in the neighborhood. I'm ordering from them right now actually!
Posted by john on 02/11/2012
Today was the 3rd time I ordered from this place and this is the very last time. I don"t get it, it seems that these guys don't really care about what they serve. I've ordered the Red Curry with vegetables only to get yellow curry which has absolutly no taste and unappetizing vegetables. Not too prodigious but when one orders food, one expects an establishment that offers this kind of service to be of certain standard and that what one orders is what one gets with a quality that is deserving of the payment made.


text:
Reach Us
* * *
Satisfied clients, emerging technology and brand recognition are clearly the value drivers for businesses. To leverage these value drivers efficiently, CXOs and IT managers continuously endeavor to develop solutions that help them exceed client expectations and stay ahead of the competition.
In times of rapidly changing technologies, lack of expertise of the emerging technologies pose new challenges for the enterprises in addition to the perpetual barriers like strict schedules and budget constraints.
Enterprises expect IT service vendors to support them in delivering state-of-the-art solutions with maximum agility and flexibility. They have realized the potential of software testing in improving quality, time-to-market and client experience by extracting maximum value from the new and existing IT investments.
L&T Infotech's Testing Service Line has emerged as a strategic testing partner delivering significant business benefits to various global enterprises across a wide range of industry verticals. We keep a keen eye on the pulse of market and add new solutions to our portfolio that are in line with the latest market trends and ever changing requirements of the businesses.
We are a client-centric, focused team of professionals offering a comprehensive set of core and specialized testing services.
For more details, click here.
Our services are built on the strong foundation supported by our key enablers:
Our team of talented professionals is dedicated to help clients achieve quality and performance goals by leveraging the domain experience, technical knowledge and substantial investments in testing infrastructure and resources.
Since becoming an independent company in 2004, Freescale has focused on becoming an agile, high-performance company. L&T Infotech has been a great asset throughout this journey. They have consistently delivered results and are a key partner in our IT and business transformation.
Sam Coursen, Former CIO, Freescale Semiconductor


text:
Patriot League Champions Ink 26 Commitments
Lafayette signs 14 on offense, 11 on defense and one special teamer
2015 Spring Football Scrimmage
2015 Spring Football Scrimmage
Plans to major in Economics.
AT NAZARETH: Earned 2012 Express-Times All-Area First Team honors ...played quarterback and cornerback in high school...passed for 1,879 yards and 16 touchdowns...ran for 1,358 yards and 15 touchdowns while averaging 6.9 yards per carry...squad managed a 13-2 record in 2011 winning the Lehigh Valley Conference and a District XI title...finished as the 2012 Eastern Conference championship runner-up...four year letterwinner in track and field, competing in the 110 hurdles, long jump, triple jump and 4x100 relay...winning the 2011 District XI championship in the 110 high hurdles...high honor roll student.
AT AVON OLD FARMS: Helped squad capture the 2013 Erickson Conference title and the 2013 Founders League championship in a post-graduate year at the school in Avon, Conn....garnered 2013 All-Erickson League First-Team honors at quarterback while also being named Offensive Player of the Year...completed 109-of-216 passes for 1,537 yards and 20 touchdowns...carried 124 times for 904 yards and nine touchdowns.
Personal: Son of Harold Simmons and Irene Guadalupe...resides with his uncle and aunt, Dywane and Wanda Harris...has an older sister, Tatiana...born 6/11/94.
Lafayette Athletics, as a partner in the mission of the College, provides an incredibly effective learning experience for student-athletes through competitive NCAA Division I athletics. Lafayette sponsors 23 varsity sports with more than 600 student-athletes.Mission Statement | Leopard Tradition | Staff Directory | Feedback
The Lafayette Sports Network (LSN) handles all multimedia elements and advertising sales for athletics at Lafayette College. LSN is the Patriot League leader in delivering high-quality programming worldwide via television, radio, streaming video and satellite.Advertising and Sponsorships | Digital Media | LSN TV


text:
Recently, Google+ has overtaken Twitter to be second in the social network rankings. This is based on active users, an active user counting as a user that posts something at least once a month. Google+ only stoops to Facebook, the number one social network, ruling supreme at the top. No surprises there, as Facebook claims half of the active internet users for their own. With their purchase of Instagram, Facebook seems to keep growing and growing, especially with their concept of the Graph Search.
Google+, the network which has been somewhat controversial, was after a long chain of failed social networking attempts from the search giant. This chain includes Orkut, Dodgeball, Jaiku, Google Wave and Google buzz. All of these early attempts flopped and Google+ seems to be Google's only good shot at social media. Seeing that Google has overtaken Twitter in the social network standings for active users, it seems that Google+ has not been such a flop, and has actually done considerably well.
The reason Google+ was so successful compared to previous attempts at social networks, is probably due to its integration with Google's search engine itself. Right on the front page of Google, members of the social network can see their alerts, and even click into them and see more posts in better detail. This means whenever one Google's something, they will be reminded of their Google+ account and alerts. The likes of Twitter simply cannot reproduce this availability. Google+ is also integrated with YouTube, Google Maps and many other Google services that are used by many users every day.


text:
Article »
Economic crisis spawns new MBA scholarships at U. of I.
9/3/2009 | Jan Dennis, Business & Law Editor | 217-333-0568; firstname.lastname@example.com
[ Email | Share ] CHAMPAIGN, Ill. – The University of Illinois College of Business is launching two new scholarship programs to help Central Illinois residents struggling amid a deep and lingering economic downturn, officials announced Thursday.
The scholarships will provide free tuition – worth nearly $50,000 each – for a
26-month Professional MBA program with a schedule of evening classes for people who have lost jobs, work hours or career-training opportunities because of the recession.
"Many in Central Illinois are suffering because of the economy, and the College of Business wants to help by providing a pathway to graduate degrees that will open new doors and opportunities," said Larry DeBrock, dean of the nationally ranked business school.
The college's "Fresh Start" program will provide up to two scholarships for people whose careers have been sidetracked by layoffs, downsizing or other corporate cost-cutting moves sparked by the recession.
"Fresh Start" scholarships are available to residents across much of Central Illinois, including Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Danville, Decatur and Peoria, said Stig Lanesskog, acting associate dean of the MBA program.
Another scholarship will be awarded under the new "Community Partners" program, targeting a Champaign County resident who is currently employed, but works for a company that is unable to fund advanced professional training because of the economic crisis. Applicants also must have a record of community service.
"The 'Fresh Start' program is need-based, for people forced to explore new career paths because of the economy," Lanesskog said. "The 'Community Partners' scholarship is for promising business leaders who normally might get tuition assistance from their employers, but not in today's economic climate."
Applications must be submitted by Nov. 1 through the Professional MBA Web site and submit supplemental materials here. All applicants must take the Graduate Management Admission Test.
"Fresh Start" applicants must submit a statement of two pages or less outlining how their lives have been derailed by the economy and how an MBA would boost their careers.
Applicants for the "Community Partners" scholarship must include a statement of one page or less explaining why they should receive the award. Three reference letters also are required, including one from a supervisor and one from an organization where the applicant volunteers.
Lanesskog says winners will be announced by the end of November and scholarships are effective for the semester that begins in January.
Editor's note: To contact Larry DeBrock, call 217-333-4553; e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com. To contact Stig Lanesskog, call 217-244-8019; e-mail email@example.com


text:
Infection [1]
An infection occurs when harmful bacteria, viruses, or fungi (such as yeast) invade the body and the immune system is not able to destroy them quickly enough. People with cancer are more likely to develop infections because both cancer and cancer treatments weaken the immune system.
The immune system fights harmful organisms (such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi) that try to invade the body. The immune system includes the skin, the spleen, the lymph nodes, and the bone marrow (a spongy, fatty tissue found inside larger bones). It also includes leukocytes, the infection-fighting white blood cells that are made inside the bone marrow. A condition called leukopenia occurs when the body does not have enough white blood cells and is less capable of fighting infections. Some white blood cells, called neutrophils, can destroy harmful bacteria and fungi. A low level of neutrophils, called neutropenia [3], often increases the risk of developing dangerous bacterial infections.
Relieving side effects, also called symptom management, palliative care [4], or supportive care, is an important part of cancer care and treatment. Although infections usually are treatable, they can be serious and potentially life-threatening. Talk with your health care team about any symptoms you experience, including any symptoms of an infection or a change in symptoms.
Signs and symptoms
People with cancer and neutropenia or a low white blood cell count are more likely to develop an infection that becomes serious. Infections may start almost anywhere, and common places include the mouth, skin, lungs, urinary tract, rectum, and genital areas (such as the vagina). Talk with your doctor right away if you experience any of the following signs of infection:
- A fever (temperature of 100.5°F or higher)
- Chills or sweating
- Sore throat, sores in the mouth [5], or a toothache
- Abdominal pain
- Pain in the perirectal (anal) area
- Pain or burning when urinating, or frequent urination
- Diarrhea [6] or sores around the anus
- A cough or shortness of breath [7]
- Any redness, swelling, or pain, particularly around a cut, wound, or the site of intravenous catheter insertion
- Unusual vaginal discharge or itching
Cancer and cancer treatment can negatively interfere with the immune system in several ways. These include:
- Lack of sleep, stress, poor diet, and other side effects of cancer and cancer treatment may weaken the immune system.
- Chemotherapy often lowers the production of white blood cells in the bone marrow to cause an infection.
- Radiation therapy can also harm the bone marrow, especially when it is given to extensive areas of the body or to the pelvis, legs, chest, or abdomen.
- Cancers that affect the bone marrow directly (such as leukemia and lymphoma) or cancers that metastasize (spread) to the bone (such as breast or lung cancers) may overwhelm normal bone marrow cells, lowering white blood cell production.
In some situations, you may receive preventive treatment for infection. For example, if you are at high risk for developing an infection because of neutropenia or because of chemotherapy or radiation therapy, you may be treated with prophylactic (preventive) antibiotics or antifungal medications.
If you develop an infection, you may be treated with antibiotics or antifungal medications. If you develop neutropenia along with a fever (called neutropenic fever), you may need to be hospitalized to receive intravenous (IV) antibiotics. In situations where you have neutropenic fever or are at a higher risk of developing neutropenic fever, your doctor may prescribe medications called colony-stimulating factors or white blood cell growth factors. These drugs encourage the body to make more neutrophils or other types of white blood cells to reduce the risk of an infection and include filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and sargramostim (Leukine or Prokine). However, this treatment is not suitable if you have neutropenia and no fever. Learn more about ASCO's recommendations for white blood cell growth factors [8].
Tips for preventing infections
There are steps you can take to help prevent infections:
- Get plenty of rest and eat a well-balanced diet [9].
- Avoid contact with people who are sick.
- Do not share food, drink cups, utensils, or other personal items, such as toothbrushes and makeup.
- Wash your hands thoroughly and frequently or use antibacterial hand sanitizers, especially after using the bathroom and before eating.
- Shower or bathe daily and apply lotion to prevent your skin from becoming dry and cracked.
- Be careful using sharp objects, such as scissors or knives, and use an electric shaver to avoid cuts.
- Do not eat raw foods, including meats, shellfish, and eggs, and wash raw fruits and vegetables. Learn more about food safety [10].
- Do not change cat litter or handle animal waste.
- Use gloves during gardening and housework, especially while cleaning.
- Clean your teeth and gums with a soft toothbrush and, if your doctor or dentist recommends one, use a mouthwash to prevent infections. Learn more about dental health during cancer treatment [11].
More Information
When to Call the Doctor During Cancer Treatment [12]
Side Effects of Chemotherapy [13]
Side Effects of Radiation Therapy [14]
White Blood Cell Growth Factors for Preventing Infection [15]
Additional Resources
Oncology Nursing Society: The Cancer Journey: Infection [16]
Centers for Disease Control: Preventing Infections in Cancer Patients [17]


text:
President Bush has been taking a beating from the Right lately. On a handful of issues, conservative members of his own party have been heaping abuse on his administration. Has Bush gone wobbly?
Here's the narrative, as articulated by those ladling out the scorn.
The president, in his final months in office, is casting about for a few "legacy" items rather than worrying about what's right for the country and what's good for his party. He is being betrayed by a lack of discipline and focus in the White House, and he's listening to bad ideas. Bush is no longer reliable on global warming, and he's so desperate for a term-ending deal with the North Koreans that he's prepared to give away the store to get it. The gap between the lame-duck president and the Republicans on Capitol Hill is widening, as he looks toward history and they look toward November. Only direct and vigorous agitation by faithful conservatives will stiffen Bush's spine and keep him from straying off the reservation.
As narratives go, this one is useful. It illuminates one perspective on the final months of the Bush presidency, and it says as much about the narrators as it does about the White House occupant.
Last month, former diplomat John Bolton contemptuously compared Bush to Bill Clinton--or even Jimmy Carter. The president's policy on North Korea--get a deal before January at any cost--amounts to "surrender," Bolton said.
Current and former White House officials aren't buying any of this. "We're not looking at legacies," says Tony Fratto, the deputy White House press secretary. "That's not a word that's allowed to be uttered in this building."
But there's no question that departing presidents have different agendas from members of Congress, even those of their own party, who are seeking re-election. And unusually powerful dynamics are attending the exit of this president, this year. In recent polls, Bush's approval ratings have sunk to 28 percent--in contrast to those of Presidents Clinton and Reagan, who, as they left office, scored 66 percent and 63 percent, respectively.
But Bush remains sufficiently popular in his own party, with more than 60 percent of Republicans approving of the job he's doing. And he is still a formidable fundraiser. All of this complicates matters for Republican officeholders. In some ways, for better and for worse, they are tied to him and his record. But they can slip a knot here and there--and when that happens, it's usually over a set of issues entirely different from those that have the Right so exercised.
North Korea and global warming are not electability issues to those who fear that the president is going soft. Such issues are mainly useful in rallying the faithful. Fratto says of the conservative activists who have boasted about their resistance to Bush's perceived turn on climate change, "I'm sure it helps their association-building."
But Rep. John Shimkus isn't going to lose his House seat because voters in his conservative Illinois district are afraid that Bush will go too far on global warming. (It's not as though the Democrats are offering a do-less alternative.) Nor will the Southern California constituents of hawkish Rep. Ed Royce chuck him out of office because the president harbors hopes of completing a deal with North Korea.
The congressional elections are a lot more likely to hinge on the mortgage crisis, gasoline prices, economic growth, farm support, and the war in Iraq. These are the issues that are causing Capitol Hill Republicans to drift away from the White House--not in huge numbers, not in a wave, but in a steady drip, drip on one particular bill after another. And the movement is to the left, not to the right--although, at least in some cases, it's about lawmakers seeking government action (and money) to address their constituents' troubles. For seven years, individual Republicans have clashed with the White House over various issues, but Bush is weaker now than ever, and his party's frustration and anxiety are mounting as November approaches.
Consider the mortgage relief bill that Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House Financial Services Committee, is shepherding through Congress. Rep. Steven LaTourette, a Republican from northeast Ohio, is full of praise for Frank and was pleased that the committee accepted his amendment to allow states with low real estate values to get more aid. The White House denounces the bill as a bailout. Bush brought Republican legislators (including LaTourette) to the White House on May 7 and promised to veto it.
"Seventy-two-hundred adjustable-rate mortgages will reset in Mentor next year," LaTourette says of one of the bigger towns in his district. "The foreclosure crisis impacts the entire nation, but Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are at the epicenter. The brand name 'subprime' equals horrible."
Somehow, he says, he has to try to persuade the people running the White House to come around. "I don't think they have reached the same conclusion as to what the solution should be as we have on Capitol Hill. And, yeah, that's a surprise," LaTourette says. "Conservative Republicans see it as a bailout. I don't."
Fratto says that Frank's bill would take money from prudent, careful homebuyers who haven't gotten into trouble. The thinking behind the bill, he maintains, is this: "Let's tax these people and give the money to the bad actors." The subprime meltdown stems from "egregious acts" by mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers, he says. "They signed on to a Ponzi scheme. Those people are nothing but speculators.
"We don't do bailouts."
Fratto also argues that the mortgage crisis hasn't been as bad as feared, in part because mortgage rates have not risen that much.
"Quite frankly," LaTourette says, "the reason we're in the minority today is because this administration--and I love them--they didn't keep their eye on the things that are important in districts like mine." And for the first time in his career, LaTourette is facing a strong Democratic challenger this fall. "We're sympathetic to the problems he's facing," Fratto says. "And we're most sympathetic to the people in his district and what they're going through."
The mortgage mess is hardly confined to the Rust Belt. Florida is among the hardest-hit states, and GOP Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite also voted for the Frank bill.
"It's absolutely the right thing to do when people are struggling," she says. "When you look at the number of foreclosures in Florida alone, and in other states, the role of government isn't to bail them out but give them a helping hand, and that's what really this is. If it were a different economy, I probably would say, let the market work itself out. But at a time when people are struggling to pay for their gas to get to jobs, when job insecurity is there, when the housing market has slowed down so that even if they wanted to sell their house they couldn't--you put all of those things together, and I think it's the responsible thing to do."
Brown-Waite says that the White House's opposition doesn't discourage her. "No. I go home on weekends, I see people our office has helped--people who are having problems with foreclosures. And it's not just Florida that's hurting. It needs to be a bipartisan approach."
Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri, another Republican, has a different problem. For five years, he's been trying to change the law governing loans by the Small Business Administration. Graves wants to do away with a provision that bars the SBA from lending money to companies that rely on venture capital fund investments. The northwestern corner of Missouri, he says, is full of small biotech firms oriented toward agriculture; a number of them got their seed money from venture capitalists because their business is "super-high capital-intensive."
Finally, this year, Graves got his idea written into the SBA reauthorization bill sponsored by Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Texas Democrat. The White House opposes the bill--and it particularly opposes Graves's venture capital proposal.
"These companies are doing super-important work. Curing cancer, fighting bioterrorism--everything in between," Graves says. "This is one that I definitely believe in. It's always frustrating when the White House opposes you. I've talked repeatedly to the administration. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I just hope they look at this."
According to Fratto, the venture capital amendment is just another case of a member of Congress promoting a pet project that the White House opposes. For the president's staff, it's a question of weighing what may seem like an urgent need, locally, against what's best for the nation.
"I represent the 6th District in Washington," Graves responds. "I don't represent Washington in the 6th District." Like LaTourette, he is facing the most serious challenge to his seat this year, from the former Democratic mayor of Kansas City, Mo. Graves also strongly backs the farm bill, which the administration denounces. "The president--I've gone around with him on this. There's just not a lot of interest in the farm program," he says. "Like the small-business bill, I try and try and try, and depending on who's advising the president, I never get through.
"I don't know how the White House works."
Getting Sloppy
One common complaint about the administration these days is sloppiness. The Bush White House used to be a tight ship, but now its friends aren't sure who is in charge. California's Royce says he believes that the State Department has taken control of policy on North Korea--with what he sees as alarming results.
Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, mistrusts Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, as too sympathetic to the idea that something has to be done about global warming. He also worries that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. is privately advocating a cap-and-trade regime on carbon emissions--because he's from Wall Street, and what does Wall Street like better than any opportunity to get in on a trading scheme? "I think there are very disparate voices within the administration on [reducing carbon emissions]," says Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
On financial regulation, meanwhile, Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission appear to be reading from different pages. Nicholas Calio, who was Bush's assistant for legislative affairs in the early days of the first term, when discipline was legendary (and who watched the wind-up of Bush's father's administration from the same post), puts it this way: "Toward the end, things can get sloppy."
Heritage's Lieberman worries that people in the administration are already thinking about their next jobs and how to land them. Others see the White House tending to go on autopilot.
Earlier this year, the Homeland Security Department's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection gave notice that it was planning to recalculate tariffs on certain imports. It based the tariffs on the goods' final purchase price before entering the U.S., rather than on the "first sale" price--in other words, setting tariffs on goods after they have passed through foreign middlemen, not before. Critics complain that the change could raise duties on some imports by 15 percent. Companies that rely on imported goods--with Nike prominent among them--began agitating to block the new rule.
Nike's home-state senators--Republican Gordon Smith and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon--asked Homeland Security to reconsider. They argued, among other things, that the customs and border patrol agency doesn't have the legal standing to make such a change unilaterally, and that officials there didn't consult Congress.
"At a time when we are looking for ways to provide stimulus to our economy, we are concerned that the proposed action could undermine essential elements of that goal by potentially raising consumer prices," the senators wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff that was signed by eight other Republican senators and seven other Democrats. A bipartisan coalition of House members sent a similar letter.
Lobbyists who are fighting the rule change say that it's symptomatic of what has gone wrong with Customs, where Bush administration officials are so focused on homeland security that they barely consider questions of prosperity or trade promotion anymore. (The agency notes that most other nations have dropped the first-sale calculation, and that the change is in line with a finding by the World Customs Organization.)
All of these complaints involve bread-and-butter issues on which members of Congress thrive. Medicaid rules, pay-discrimination legislation, meat inspections, student loans, relief for salmon fishermen--on these, too, congressional Republicans have been veering away from the White House. Legions of GOP lawmakers have snubbed the president on the farm bill. The disagreement in this case is so broad that, in a sense, it's hardly anything special. Bush has argued for several years--to little avail--that the federal government shouldn't be providing large subsidies to wealthy farmers. "In the end," says Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, "members have a remarkable ability to pass pretty expensive farm bills in election years."
"We need a farm bill," says Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, one Republican who is running for re-election. "This bill's going to get broad bipartisan support. If the president were to veto it, I think it would be overridden. I'd certainly vote to."
In Line on Iraq
On one big issue--for many, the defining issue of the Bush years--Republicans find it more difficult to stray. The bill to provide supplemental funds for the war in Iraq is coming up, and as unpopular as the war is, Republicans probably won't abandon the president's position. Many have questioned the war but have rigorously voted for it. Republicans and Democrats alike say that that's not likely to change now.
"Republicans believe it is in their interest to go along with the president," Binder says. Most are from safe Republican seats, and 66 percent of Republicans nationwide approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. Republicans who dissent have been punished--witness Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, who was defeated in this year's GOP primary by a more hawkish candidate.
But if violence continues to increase in Iraq and if American deaths climb, could congressional Republicans start to question the success of the troop surge and begin to lose confidence?
Coleman doubts that will happen. "We're always concerned about violence," he says. "We're not going to cut off funding for our troops. And I'm certainly not going to be supporting a precipitous withdrawal. That's not going to lessen violence; that would only increase violence. The fact is, Iraq is difficult and it's complicated," he says. "We need a path to get our soldiers out of there as quickly and as safely as possible: a light at the end of the tunnel. But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't cause more violence or undermine their security."
Coleman says he sees no daylight between his position and the administration's. But the White House is getting push-back on the edges. Smith--who, like Coleman, speaks critically of the war but votes with the president--is among a group of West Coast senators who want to put some domestic spending (in this case, assistance for salmon fishermen) into the war supplemental, over Bush's objections.
Brown-Waite enthusiastically supports the GI Bill expansion proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., over a less expensive version backed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that has the administration's blessing. The Webb bill would give more benefits to veterans who have as little as 36 months of service; its critics worry that the change would hurt the military's re-enlistment efforts.
"We have [Speaker Nancy Pelosi] behind it," she says. "We have Harry Reid, the majority leader in the Senate, and with this many co-sponsors, I'd put my money on this bill."
There are limits, though, to the extent of any Republican revolt against Bush. Partisanship in Washington remains so strong that there is little room for maneuver. Several unstoppable factors are driving that partisanship--the blogosphere and cable news among them--but Bush chose early on to take a polarizing approach, says Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University. "He fully embraced this style of politics," and that decision has accelerated partisanship, Zelizer says.
Now, falling in the polls and having lost control of Congress, the GOP is doing a certain amount of wagon-circling. Or call it a purification process. "As the Republican Party shrinks, it becomes more cohesive," Binder says. Even if Bush wanted to back Frank's mortgage relief bill to help out endangered Republicans in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere, he would be pilloried by doctrinaire conservatives who oppose anything that smacks of a bailout. He'd be outside the circled wagons. Fratto argues: "Some of the critics on our side of the aisle have to remember, we do have principles."
A Weight on His Party
White House veterans maintain that Bush still has plenty of clout. Jack Howard, a onetime legislative aide who now runs a lobbying firm, says that the president's influence will become more visible toward the end of the congressional session. "He still has the ability to put things on the national agenda," Howard says. "And the president really does want to see Republicans get re-elected."
But Bush is so unpopular nationally that he has become what Fred Greenstein, a presidential historian and professor emeritus at Princeton, calls a weight on his party, a heavier drag than any president since Lyndon Johnson in 1968. "He's good for fundraising. He's good for targeted audiences. But how often has John McCain said, 'I'm proud to be following in the footsteps of George Bush'?"
The president seems to be "swinging for the fences," Greenstein says, traveling abroad regularly and hoping, as presidents have before him, for a last-minute breakthrough in the Middle East. On April 28, press secretary Dana Perino said that when Bush last met with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, "both reaffirmed their commitment to continuing to work together to help define a Palestinian state by the end of this year."
Bush retains the considerable power that comes with the authority to issue executive orders and attach signing statements to any legislation that finds its way to his desk--and those weapons, Greenstein says, don't require him to try to work with Capitol Hill. Republicans in Congress, of course, may not see that power in such a positive light. But even as they start turning away from Bush, Greenstein says, they won't admit it, because the core loyalty is still so strong--and because the president can still raise so much money.
Bush was a beneficiary of the trend toward a "plebiscitary presidency," says Gene Healy, a senior editor at the Cato Institute and the author of a new book, The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Presidential Power. High, and often unrealistic, public expectations almost always drive a president to seek more and more executive power at the expense of Congress, Healy says, and the combination of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and a compliant Republican majority on the Hill made it possible for Bush to grab power by the handful. Even after the Hurricane Katrina disaster unfolded, Congress gave him yet more power--but his popularity was crumpling over the way he handled his new authority, and the "plebiscitary" nature of the presidency has come back to haunt Bush as the inevitable public disappointment has mounted.
Ebell, of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, compares Bush unfavorably with Bill Clinton, in at least one respect. The first thing Clinton would do, he says, is gather together all the concerned parties on a particular issue. "What do you want? What can we do?" Then, when an initiative had been thrashed out, they'd meet again. "OK, we got three things you want, two things that are OK, and one you'll hate. Now, this is what you need to do--we gotta parcel out the op-eds, the talk shows, etc., etc." The Bush administration never does this, Ebell says, "and then seems mystified when they don't get support."
Bush certainly looks lonely on global warming. His April 16 Rose Garden speech on climate change was attacked from all sides--and with all sides agreeing that the speech was sorely lacking in substance. "It really didn't say very much," Heritage's Lieberman says. Ebell adds, "It's hard to see what the purpose of the speech was--unless initially there was more to it."
Conservatives acted as though there was. A week before Bush's speech, James Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Keith Hennessey, director of the National Economic Council, began briefing conservative Republicans in Congress. Word went around that the White House was considering a variety of options, up to and including a cap-and-trade regime for carbon emissions and even mandatory targets. Alarm bells began to ring in conservative circles.
Lieberman was plenty worried about "a president with an edifice complex on his mind." Ebell says, "The idea that the president would give in has been around. We have been very closely watching, because Josh Bolten is in charge of the White House now"--and it was Bolten, Ebell asserts, who persuaded candidate Bush to back cap-and-trade back in 2000, a position the president repudiated once he landed in the White House.
Congressional Republicans didn't receive Connaughton and Hennessey's briefing well. The Democratic leadership would ignore whatever the president proposed, they argued, yet any move by Bush would serve to "raise the floor." Rep. Shimkus told the briefers, according to his spokesman, Steven Tomaszewski: "Why bother, because it's not an issue where there's going to be movement on [Democrats'] end toward your proposal."
In the days before the Rose Garden event, Ebell and others put together a letter of protest warning the president against making what they called "a terrible blunder." The 25 signers included Paul Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, an association of conservative activist organizations; and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
In the end, when Bush stepped out into the Rose Garden (abloom with red tulips), he announced that he was committing the United States to the goal of ending the growth in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2025. His speech contained none of the mandatory efforts to combat global warming that the conservatives had feared. They believe they blocked stronger proposals. "You can never tell in any winning effort what caused you to win," Ebell says.
So, did the president back off? Absolutely not, Connaughton responds. "Everybody always likes to predict what we're going to do." What he talked about on Capitol Hill, he says, was the prospect of a "regulatory train wreck" if courts should rule that the Clean Air Act covers carbon dioxide emissions. Cap-and-trade "wasn't in the cards," Fratto says. And Bush didn't fold under pressure. "Complete urban myth. Completely and utterly false. It's not true."
Still, the president got less than a rousing reception. The speech created difficulties for congressional Republicans who have steadfastly resisted proposals to address global warming, Lieberman says. "Time is short. Why change a seven-year policy? No speech would have been better than this speech."
But doing nothing was not an option, Fratto contends. "Republicans need to understand these things are moving, with or without us. Maintaining the status quo is not winning. But it takes a while to sit down with each member of Congress and walk them through this impressionist painting we're looking at." That message may be starting to get through on the Hill--especially because all of the presidential contenders have far stronger global-warming proposals than Bush has.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma has been the leading congressional skeptic on climate change. But he understands the argument of Bush's aides that the president's goal-setting effort could be an effective firebreak against more-drastic action in the next administration. "We need to do something like technology-sharing [with other countries] to accomplish some restriction on CO2," Inhofe says. "But certainly not a cap-and-trade. So if that [position is] moving in McCain's direction, then it's moving in McCain's direction."
On the matter of North Korea, there has been far less ambiguity. Conservatives are deeply suspicious of the Bush administration, fearing that it lacks the will to force North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program.
"There has been a consistent willingness to lower the bar with respect to North Korea," California's Royce says. "A continued pattern of letting them off the hook. But success can't be built on compromised principles." Nick Eberstadt, a Korea expert at the American Enterprise Institute, says, "The U.S. government has thrown the bar away. The administration is willing to take any deal it can get away with."
Conservatives were suspicious of the motives when the administration disclosed intelligence showing a North Korean-Syrian link. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., believes that the White House was using Congress. Eberstadt, who says the president's approach to North Korea was formerly marked by "a surfeit of attitude and a paucity of policy," believes that the administration has now decided to ditch the attitude, as well. Why? "I'm not a Kremlinologist."
The perceived White House shift leads to what Eberstadt calls an awkward political calculation: "Does one support a president of one's party, or does one point to the obvious nakedness of the emperor? That's a question of immediate political expedience."
Calio thinks that the hard-liners should calm down. A deal to eliminate North Korea's nuclear program is too important to toss away casually, even as difficult as the North Koreans have been. "You have to give something to get something," he says. "Just saying no hasn't been working." But that's not an argument that resonates with those who fondly recall the more single-minded and self-confident Bush White House approach of years gone by.
Conservative criticism and mistrust of the administration aren't new, of course. On June 3, 2002, The Weekly Standard ran an article by William Kristol and Robert Kagan under the headline "Going Wobbly?" The authors feared that Bush was having doubts about whether to invade Iraq. (They needn't have worried.) Two years ago, the immigration debate set off ferocious unhappiness within the Right, enough to sideline a bipartisan effort and temporarily threaten McCain's presidential quest.
What's different now is the approaching expiration of the president's term. "He's done. These guys have got to live for the election coming up," says Patrick Griffin, who was President Clinton's legislative director. "And getting re-elected? You're back, and you're born again. That is a powerful, powerful dynamic."
Bush's unpopularity has so drained his political capital among Republicans, Binder says, that they are no longer willing to go out on a limb for him. That doesn't mean that a big break is in the works. It means that the president is simply no longer very relevant to the rest of his party.
Fratto says he's surprised that anyone would think Republicans in Congress and in the White House have diverging interests. Coordination between the president's people and their allies on Capitol Hill, he says, has never been better. "We are all in the same foxhole. The ranks have been unusually tight."
This article appears in the May 17, 2008 edition of National Journal Magazine.