*Insert clever response

I’ve done it! I started down the primrose path to a world of utter destruction. Where you can’t tell what is “yes” and what is “no”…the land of misfit necks. Heads are swollen, bodies are pint sized, and perpetual activity reigns supreme. I have fallen down this rabbit hole and now I won’t be able to get out. It’s a landslide or some kind of slide toward a way of life that leads to darkness. I tried not to, but I just couldn’t wrap my head around it. What started as a passing fancy is growing into an obsession…and a curse. You don’t expect these things, but you buy the ticket and pretty soon it just starts. Wow, I can’t believe I’ve rambled this long while being somewhat vague yet completely straightforward. It can be summed up in just one (or two, depending on your spelling) and it’s been around for decades.

What I am talking about, of course, is the bobblehead, also known as a bobbing head figurine, nodder, or wobbler, is a type of collectible figurine. Its head is often oversized compared to its body, allowing for the weight distribution which creates the bobble action. Instead of a solid connection, its head is connected to the body by a spring in such a way that a light tap will cause the head to bobble, hence the name. Although bobbleheads have been made with a wide variety of figures such as vampiric cereal pitchman Count Chocula, beat generation author Jack Kerouac, and Nobel-prize-winning geneticist James D. Watson, the figure is most associated with athletes, especially baseball players. Bobbleheads are sometimes given out to ticket buyers at sporting events as a promotion (referred to as an SGA or stadium give-away, this is how my passion sparked). Corporations including Taco Bell (the 'Yo Quiero Taco Bell' Chihuahua) , McDonald's (Ronald McDonald), and Empire Today (The Empire Man) have also produced popular bobbleheads of the characters used in their advertisements.

The earliest known reference to a bobblehead is thought to be in Nikolai Gogol's 1842 short story The Overcoat, in which the main character's neck was described as "like the necks of plaster cats which wag their heads". The modern era or the bobblehead began in the 1950s and by 1960, Major League Baseball had gotten in on the action and produced a series of papier-mâché bobblehead dolls, one for each team, all with the same cherubic face. Although successful in their own right, by the mid-1970s the bobblehead craze was in the process of winding down. It would take nearly two decades before bobbleheads returned to prominence. The first baseball team to offer a bobblehead giveaway was the San Francisco Giants, which distributed 35,000 Willie Mays head nodders at a 1999 game. My team, the Texas Rangers, has been giving away at least one a year for the past five or so years. I want to collect them all.

I don’t know why, but having all these bobbleheads has become a goal for me. This is nothing that consumes my entire life, but more than likely consuming significant amounts of my money. Since I can’t travel back in time to go to every game over the past few years that had a bobblehead giveaway, I have to be creative and cunning to track them down. There are many places to look to be honest with you. I once found one in a thrift store in Plano. It was just sitting there on a shelf, still in the box. That’s the jackpot, finding them mint in the box. It is like collecting anything else, if you have the packaging, it makes it just that much more valuable. I have all the boxes for my bobbleheads, just in case I need to move them for any reason. They take a prominent place on a shelf in my living room (a decision I made after a good friend questioned why I would keep them in the boxes locked away in a closet). I look over and they are poised, statuesque, in their positions of throwing, catching, or hitting (“You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball…YOU GOT IT!”)

I know what some of you are thinking. Don’t you already collect other stuff? Well, yes, and I move from collection to collection, focusing on one thing or the other as the fancy suits me. For the longest time in high school I collected antique Avon cologne bottles. They’re interesting. Avon made the bottles in all different shapes, like cars or buildings, which were mostly glass with plastic caps that would fit into the theme of the bottle’s shape. Then I moved on to flasks. I have an impressive collection of flasks. I don’t know why, but I do. If there ever comes a time where you are looking for the perfect way to move your beverage with cunning, then call me. After that I moved on to paint-by-number paintings. I have a paint-by-number gallery in my living room here. Paint by number (or painting by numbers) describes kits having a board on which light blue lines indicate areas to paint, each area having a number and a corresponding numbered paint to use. These are all paintings done by someone else. It is like having a piece of someone’s creativity and focus for just a few brief seconds. Now I have moved on to bobbleheads.

Right now I am watching six different stadium give-away bobbleheads on eBay. In fact, two of them are ending today. I have been trying to figure out how I can afford them and still get to the end of the month without having to sell stuff. Times are tough, but if you ask the bobbleheads, they are always positive (head nodding up and down). Wow, I’ve really run out of gas on this topic, so I’m out.

Poorly invested political capital

Staying at my brother’s place and taking care of his dogs has left me without my laptop. Thus, I have not been able to work on a stellar blog entry for today. So, I will reluctantly have to regurgitate a news article I read that drew my attention. Ask yourself why I would want you to read this article. Then ask yourself why you took the time to read this article. If you have answers to either one of those questions, just leave a comment…

Obama endorsements don't seem to help Democrats
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Voters rejected one of President Barack Obama's hand-picked candidates and forced another into a runoff, the latest sign that his political capital is slipping beneath a wave of anti-establishment anger.

Sen. Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president's active involvement, raising doubts about Obama's ability to help fellow Democrats in this November's elections.

The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter's loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama's influence and popularity even within his own party — and in a battleground state, no less.

Of course, it's possible that Democrats will fare better than expected this fall. And there's only so much that any president can do to help other candidates, especially in a non-presidential election year.

Still, Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election in what is shaping up as a pro-Republican year. Conversely, it might embolden Republican lawmakers and candidates who oppose him.

"We're licking our chops at running against President Obama," said Rand Paul, tea party candidate and victor in Kentucky's Republican primary for retiring GOP Sen. Jim Bunning's seat. Paul told CNN on Wednesday he'd relish Obama's campaigning on behalf of Democrat Jack Conway. Obama's agenda, Paul said, is "so far to the left, he's not popular in Kentucky."

Obama's track record also raises the question of whether he may be hurting candidates he supports by motivating his foes — such as tea party supporters — to vote. Though this month's AP-GfK Poll shows Americans split about evenly over how he's handling his job, those strongly disapproving outnumber people who strongly back him by 33 percent to 22 percent — not an enviable position for the president's party.

Sestak's victory over Specter is especially embarrassing, because he won by portraying himself and his supporters as being more faithful to the Democratic Party than were Specter and his backers — who included the president, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and other high-ranking party officials.

Creating another bruise for Obama and the Democratic establishment Tuesday, Sen. Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff in Arkansas' Democratic senatorial primary. Obama supports her bid for a third term, but he is not as closely associated with her campaign as he was with Specter's.

In previous months, Obama's endorsements and campaign appearances weren't enough to save then-Gov. Jon Corzine's re-election bid in New Jersey, Creigh Deeds' run for governor in Virginia or Martha Coakley's campaign in Massachusetts to keep the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat in Democratic hands.

In fairness, Deeds was an underdog from the start, and Corzine brought many problems on himself. But the Coakley loss to Republican Scott Brown was excruciating. She once was considered a shoo-in, and her defeat restored the Republicans' ability to block Democratic bills with Senate filibusters.

Unlike the Corzine, Deeds and Coakley races, Obama made no late-campaign appearances for Specter. But it will be hard for the president to distance himself from Specter's career-ending loss.

Obama campaigned for Specter last September in Philadelphia, where he said, "I love Arlen Specter." Specter used the clip in recent TV ads. Obama also e-mailed his supporters on Specter's behalf, and he was the first person Specter thanked in his concession speech.

Vice President Joe Biden, a Pennsylvania native, made several appearances for Specter. Last week he told a Pittsburgh radio station, "Arlen is the Democratic candidate."

Moreover, Obama was central to an all-important deal with Specter that struck some Democratic voters as opportunistic at best.

Specter had been a Republican senator for 28 years, opposing countless Democratic bills and appointees even if he showed more independence than most lawmakers. Thirteen months ago, however, he concluded he could not win the GOP nomination for a sixth term against conservative Pat Toomey. He and top Democrats struck a deal.

Specter would become a Democrat, giving the party the crucial 60th Senate vote it needed to overcome Republican filibusters, which were frustrating the administration. In exchange, Obama, Biden, Rendell and the entire Democratic hierarchy agreed to support Specter's 2010 re-election, including efforts to clear his way to the party's nomination.

The losers in the deal were any longtime Democrats who aspired to the U.S. Senate. They essentially were told to step aside for an 80-year-old longtime Republican. Pennsylvania's Democratic voters were asked to concur.

Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral first elected to the House in 2006, refused to go along. He plugged away without help from the state or national party. A few weeks ago he trailed Specter by about 20 percentage points in polls of likely Democratic voters.

But Sestak caught fire in the closing days, partly through a TV ad showing Specter campaigning enthusiastically with then-President George W. Bush, who remains deeply unpopular with many Democratic primary voters.

In the past few weeks, the White House has played down Obama's role in the Tuesday primaries, and he spent Election Day in Ohio talking about the economy.

"At some point, you feel like we've done what we can do," senior White House adviser David Axelrod told The Associated Press in an interview. "We do have other stuff going on," he said.

Matt Bennett, a Democratic strategist and vice president of the group Third Way, said he doubts that Democratic lawmakers will panic over Obama's inability to help Specter to a victory.

"Presidents have coattails when their names are on the ballot," Bennett said, and that can't happen for Obama until 2012.

Please shower before entering the pool

Now this is the one topic in eschatology that is mostly Catholic related. It is wildly controversial and often neglected among scholars. I have heard and read many arguments against purgatory, but none of them seem to add up to the weight of the facts that there should be a purgatory. Some arguments are really clever and well-thought and researched, which makes them very enticing, but others are just ill-conceived anti-Catholic hoopla that is meant more to incite than to inform. But what is all this fuss about really? The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It notes that "this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1031). Yes, that means that there is a third place you can go after your physical death and it is a real place just as heaven and hell are real places. What of this purification business? The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. The need for continual forgiveness of sins is also a Catholic thing. I believe that Christ did die for my sins and indeed the sin of the world, but if you sin you need to seek earthly, as well as spiritual repentance. Let me be completely upfront, I know that I sin and I feel that just asking for forgiveness may not be enough, thus I seek repentance by whatever means there may be; as a Catholic that means is Reconciliation. The residue of sin sticks with you, I believe, so even though I may die with the sin forgiven, I may need to take a spiritual "shower" in purgatory before I go into the calm, relaxing "pool" of heaven (I hope everyone catches the metaphor there). Please remember that from here on out I will be speaking about Catholic belief and the arguments made against this belief, but this is in no way an attack on anyone’s particular faith.

Two Judgments
When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5). Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). If you die and are judged worthy to be called one of God's children, but not clean enough to enter his presence, then you will be sent to purgatory where you can become clean.

Money, Money, Money
One argument anti-Catholics often use to attack purgatory is the idea that the Catholic Church makes money from promulgating the doctrine. Without purgatory, the claim asserts, the Church would go broke. Any number of anti-Catholic books claim the Church owes the majority of its wealth to this doctrine. But the numbers just don't add up. When a Catholic requests a memorial Mass for the dead, that is, a Mass said for the benefit of someone in purgatory, it is customary to give the parish priest a stipend, on the principles that the laborer is worth his hire (Luke 10:7) and that those who preside at the altar share the altar's offerings (1 Cor. 9:13–14). In the United States, a stipend is commonly around five dollars; but the indigent do not have to pay anything. A few people, of course, freely offer more. This money goes to the parish priest, and priests are only allowed to receive one such stipend per day. No one gets rich on five dollars a day, and certainly not the Church, which does not receive the money anyway. But look at what happens on a Sunday. There are often hundreds of people at Mass. In a crowded parish such as St. Francis (Frisco, TX) or St. Joseph (Richardson, TX), there may be thousands. Many families and individuals deposit five dollars or more into the collection basket; others deposit less. A few give much more. A parish might have four or five or six Masses on a Sunday. The total from the Sunday collections far surpasses the paltry amount received from the memorial Masses. Also, the collection from Masses goes toward the operation of the church itself, which includes paying bills and salaries. And I can't think of any Catholic churches in Dallas that are so far in the black they have money to send to the Vatican.

"A Catholic Invention"
Anti-Catholics may be fond of saying the Catholic Church "invented" the doctrine of purgatory to make money, but they have difficulty saying just when. Most professional anti-Catholics, the ones who make their living attacking "Romanism", seem to place the blame on Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from A.D. 590–604. But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven. Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it. This is not to mention the biblical references to purgatory which will be discussed later on.

Why No Protests?
Whenever a date is set for the "invention" of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it? A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine's truth by asking: Was this believed by our ancestors? Was it handed on from the apostles? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first…so where are the records of protests? They don't exist. There is no hint at all, in the oldest writings available to us (or in later ones, for that matter), that "true believers" in the immediate post-apostolic years spoke of purgatory as a novel doctrine. They must have understood that the oral teaching of the Apostles, what we as Catholics call Tradition (with a capital T), and the Bible not only failed to contradict the doctrine, but, in fact, confirmed it.

"Purgatory Not in Scripture"
Some anti-Catholics also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren't in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn't use that word. Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one's sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man's work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man's work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can't refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can't be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage. Then, of course, there is the Bible's approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–46). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that according to biblical scholars, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants trying to distance themselves from the Catholic Church had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.

Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean. Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul remains a dirty soul and isn't fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."