Spiritual events

This morning while gardening a hummingbird joined me. I had not seen one in a few years. She was greenish with black wings tipped in white. It felt to me like a spiritual event. I discovered that she was thirsty. I got the hose and squirted some water on the leaves of a nearby tree, and she immediately commenced drinking the water.

How's the garden, you ask? Well, it has been the summer of Rosie. Rosie is the cow who gives us delicious milk every day. She waits until flowers are in full bloom, then breaks through the fence and chomps them down. We fix the fence, and she waits for the blooms to come again. That part doesn't strike me as a spiritual event.

How can one not love a kid who thinks like that?

Today as I was tending my garden, son Greg walked up. "Your garden has so many colors in it, Dad, that it looks like a rainbow fell down from the sky and landed in your garden."

Stop it, Rush!

Have you been hearing Rush Limbaugh, the foremost practitioner in today's world of Saul Alinsky's tactics, badmouth Alinsky day after day? You can tell Rush has read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, because he quotes from it almost daily. Today he quoted from Alinsky's "rule" that a good organizer always uses words and phrases that are within the experience of those whom he is trying to organize. He says that is what the Obamaites are trying to do, but then, once they get us to swallow the healthcare bill, the Obamaites will sock it to us big time.

Alinsky never talked or wrote about organizing people and then socking it to them. If he organized people, it was to enable them to gain a measure of power, individually and politically. Please don't blame Alinsky, Rush, for what these schemers are trying to do to us.

Click to enlarge daughter Kim's latest collage of photos from a recent camping trip.

If you think Obamacare is bad...

If you think people are upset about government plans to take over the healthcare industry, wait until the predicted severe sugar shortage occurs in 2010! No Hershey bars, no Oreos, no Chips Ahoy, thousands more workers laid off, no M&Ms, no chewing gum, no wafers, no Fruit Loops: get my drift? That is what Kraft, General Mills, Hershey and others are threatening in a letter to the Obama administration, in order to try to get tariffs reduced. The only country that currently does not have to pay the tariff is Mexico. If Americans are unable to purchase the above-mentioned staples of their diet, the repercussions in Washington will begin to get serious. There is not enough sugar being produced to feed the world appetite for it. Ethanol production is also causing the price to rise, just as it is for corn. You don't think sugar cane growers have political power? Read any Carl Hiaason book! (I recommend Hiaason regardless of the sugar cane growers).

Telling the truth

So who has the guts to buck the media adoration of Ted Kennedy? Rush Limbaugh! After saying that he admired the way Ted fought and struggled to try to overcome his health problems, Rush went on to tell it like it is: the Senator from Massachusetts was a lion all right, a lion who preyed on people who work for a living; he constantly sought to take money and hard earned benefits like health care from people who work, and give it to those who do not work. David Brooks and others are praising Ted Kennedy for his gracious friendships that often crossed the aisle. Have people forgotten Kennedy's treatment of Judge Robert Bork and Judge Clarence Thomas and President George W. Bush, not to mention Mary Jo Kopechne?

What's a parent to do?

Kay Hymowitz writes a review in today's WSJ of the book Nurture Shock, which looks at years of research on child development. Does high self esteem improve grades? No. Does it reduce anti-social behavior? No. Does it deter alcohol drinking, or do much of anything good for kids? No. Even telling kids they are smart can be counterproductive. "Many children who are convinced that they are little geniuses tend not to put much effort into their work. Others are troubled by the latent anxiety of adults who feel it necessary to praise them constantly."

Okay, but how about the benefits of teaching tolerance and promoting diversity? One researcher found that "more diversity translates into more divisions among students." Another warns that too much discussion of past discrimination can make minority children over-reactive to perceived future slights. Our son Jon experienced this the other day when he was asked to pass out pencils in Sunday School. A black child asked him if he did not give him a pencil because he is black. Jon had innocently spaced out (as he is want to do) giving the child a pencil.

Drop-out and anti-drug programs have also been shown not to work. What about those tests that school districts use to determine giftedness in young children? "Early IQ tests predict later achievement less than half the time. Between ages 3 and 10, about two-thirds of children will experience a rise or drop of 15 points or more." Oh, and one more recent research finding: 4-year-olds lie once an hour! Teenagers lie too, but usually because they don't want to upset their parents. Teens do like conflict, though, and see it as enhancing their relationships with their parent (doesn't that contradict the finding cited in the last sentence?)

A famous 1994 study showed that babies of professionals were exposed to almost three times the number of words as the babies of welfare parents. Apparently many parents began trying to use more words after hearing about the research. Now, though, it turns out that it's not so much the number of words kids hear that matters but the responsiveness of adults to a child's words and explorations." As Fred Thompson says daily on his radio program, "Why do they call it common sense, when it is so uncommon?"

Too Polarizing?

Reader Terri Wagner thinks Rush Limbaugh is too polarizing to run successfully for the presidency. Yes, that may be true, but...

Rush has lost over eighty pounds, and is still happily on his diet. I just wonder if a run for the presidency might be in the back of his mind or somewhere else on his "glorious body." He would have huge, enthusiastic support from a large segment of America's middle class. For over twenty-five years Rush has been pounding away at the same message Ronald Reagan pounded away at when he was spokesperson for General Electric: individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, strong national defense, loving and respecting this country and its founding principles. Reagan was also a polarizing figure, having no sympathy and givng not an inch to the protesting students during the 1960s, when he was governor of California. No opponent would stand a chance in a debate with Rush. He is "onto them." He "knows them like he knows every inch of his glorious body." He is at least as media savvy as Obama, but Obama could not go head-to-head with Rush. Rush would eat him alive (and then have to go back on his diet).

Unlike this last campaign, the middle class of America would be galvanized, enthusiastic, involved, and highly motivated to work for Rush's election! Can you imagine the television ratings of a debate between Obama and Limbaugh? I can hear the shouts of "You tell 'em Rush" coming out of the windows of middle class houses all over America. Americans are personally attached to Rush, because his enemies are their enemies.

Who will carry forth the Alinsky torch?

Reader Terri Wagner asked how I could compare Rush Limbaugh and Saul Alinsky. Rush has all the qualities Alinsky hoped for in an organizer of people. He uses humor effectively. I dare you to listen to Rush for an hour and not get a chuckle. He is comfortable with conflict. He daily engages the liberal enemy in conflict. He instinctively understands that the action is in the reaction. That is, the liberal establishment daily reveals its fear of Rush. Rush plays back their words, then rolls right into the action, ridiculing anyone who dares to take him on.

A superb communicator like Obama, Rush does not make the fatal mistake Obama makes, which is to have contempt for the great middle class of America. Just the opposite; he is ever-confident, lending the strength of his ego to millions of people, encouraging people to have faith in themselves and in the American dream of self-reliance, freedom, and private enterprise. Rush has earned the trust of a great swath of the American middle class, something Alinsky wanted to do, but his untimely death at age 63 prevented him from pursuing that dream.

Tactics? No one understands the effective use of tactics like Rush Limbaugh. Alinsky noted in his book Rules for Radicals that our founders conspiculously omitted all the advantages the colonies had gained from the British, and cited only the disadvantages. Why? Because, as Alinsky noted, "before men will act, an issue must be polarized" and, I might add, personalized. Do you know anyone who does a better job of that than Rush Limbaugh?

Rush is amazingly well-organized personally, always staying on top of current events. He is imaginative and well prepared.

Last night on the way home from work I listened to talk show host Billy Cunningham touting a Sean Hannity-for-President candidacy in 2012. We have many brilliant spokespersons: Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham also have huge audiences. It should be noted that, like Obama, Limbaugh has used this expertise for his own personal advantage, reaping an income of $38 million dollars a year, but doing so by advocating private enterprise and putting those principles into practice through his own initiative and brilliance and perseverance. Obama, on the other hand, got there by advocating big government, and becoming its head, and he now lives the most lavish of personal lifestyles, funded by the taxes of private citizens.

Saul Alinsky was all about empowering people. Rush and Obama have succeeded in empowering themselves. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity seem to have a really good knack of organizing people to take action (Sean's Freedom Concerts and Glenn's encouraging of people's participation in Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings).

Who is the foremost practitioner of Saul Alinsky's tactics in today's world?

After finishing reading Alinsky's Rules for Radicals I Googled Saul Alinsky and saw that he died in June, 1972, which was the year following publication of the book. Barack Obama was eleven years old that year! The way Rush Limbaugh makes it sound, Alinsky and Obama were buddies! Don't get me wrong, I think Rush Limbaugh is the foremost practitioner of Saul Alinsky's tactics in today's world. Glenn Beck is a close second. Glenn and Rush both have profound respect for middle class America. Alinsky did not, but he realized (and said so in his last chapter) that the best hope for America would be if someone could organize middle class America. Barack Obama organized middle class America to vote for him! Alinsky was all about organizing people to empower people, not himself. He wanted people to be active participants in the affairs of their country.

"American Lie"

If you have not heard it, go to Rush Limbaugh.com to listen to Paul Shanklin sing "American Lie." It is to the tune of "American Pie," and I think it is absolutely brilliant.

Where did I part company with Saul Alinsky?

So if I was so fond of Saul Alinsky, why did I part company with him and others like him? I think it was because of the inconsistency (a word he hated) in his respect for the individual, on the one hand, and his purposely polarizing people in power and depicting them as 100% evil, when in fact they were probably 55% bad and 45% good. He did this polarizing tactic in order to motivate people to band together to take action, Getting people to participate in improving their lot in life was what he was all about. However, what many needed was the self-discipline to work hard, study hard, take care of their families, and encourage their children to do the same. If they were blaming all their problems on some person whom Alinsky has painted as 100% evil, then I saw that as a huge cop out.

Paying people to support leftist causes

Mrs. Who (House of Zathras on the sidebar) revealed in a recent post that the dems are paying people to come to the town hall meetings. Today on the Denver Craig's list going back four days, there are 25 listings under the "non-profit" heading for jobs in the Denver metro area. Twelve of them are for left-wing organizing jobs. Of course, the same was true during the election campaign. Republicans were vastly out-organized by Democrats.

A Word About Words

In Rules for Radicals Saul Alinsky takes time out to write a chapter about words. He quotes Mark Twain: "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." William McGurn points out in today's WSJ that Nancy Pelosi is using the word "un-American," and land-swindler Nevada Senator Harry Reid is using the words "evil mongers" to describe Americans who show up at town hall meetings to ask questions or express dissent. Do Pelosi and Reid suffer from an ailment Alinsky diagnosed as "tongues-trapping-their-minds" disease, or by purposely choosing words such as "mob" and "un-American, are Speaker Pelosi and her "evil monger" friend Harry Reid hoping to use the media to shame us into our previous silent mode of refraining from showing up in public to ask questions and express dissent?

We are organized!

The left is desperate. They are afraid the great middle class of America is organizing and might want to take away their power! They are accusing us of being a mob. The one thing they do not want is for us to become organized!

Although they are doing a masterful job of motivating the great middle class, in one sense Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity might be making a huge mistake. They are all proudly asserting that we are not organized! That we are just individuals concerned about the direction the left is taking America. I think they should be encouraging the myth that we are organized! That would cause an even more reckless overreaction from the likes of Pelosi and the other politicians who are so afraid of us.

In the 2008 election the middle classes were unexcited, even apathetic, about John McCain. Obama used his understanding of the importance of organization to launch himself and Michelle into the White House. Obama understands organizing people, and the last thing he wants is for all of us who cling to our religion, our stupid America-loving values, and our guns, to get organized!

Some recent photos taken with daughter Kim's camera:

Sara loves to camp!
It's non-stop play for these two guys (photo taken before the back-to-school haircuts).
Coby is our most playful dog.

Ya have to watch out for Greg; he has this thing about jumping up on the backs of older siblings!

Are you a doer, or a non-doer?

Saul Alinsky saw life itself as a battle. He also saw duality and complementarity everywhere: "everything has an indivisible partner of its converse." He noted that the "CIO was once a militant champion of America's workers, but now is an entrenched member of the establishment" (Is it ever!) Alinsky saw life as a constant struggle between the positive and its converse negative. "The positive of today is the negative of tomorrow, and vice versa." He believed that the revolutionary cycle goes on - the revolutionary group becomes the establishment and a new revolutionary group picks up the torch.

Now, men like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are trying to organize the great middle class of America. The difficulty in organizing the middle class, said Alinsky, is that we generally seek the safe way, where we middle classers can profit by some change and yet not risk losing what we do have. Yet, Alinsky saw the middle class as the "genesis of creativity." However, whenever "sparks of dissension promise to flare up into the fire of action," there are "individious Do-Nothings who abstain from and discourage all effective action for change." The non-doers are the ones who "drew their window blinds when the Nazis dragged people through the streets. They privately deplored the horror of it all - and then did nothing."

"Oh"

Nine-year-old Jon: "Dad, what is the difference between leftist, liberal, and Democrat?
"Well, son. that is a great question. Let me think about it...I'd say they are pretty much the same."
"But there is such a thing as a conservative Democrat."
"There is?"
"Yes, Mom says Grandpa is a conservative Democrat."
"Oh."

The Great Pushback of 2009

Have you been listening to Glenn Beck? Wow! He really does his homework, and is on the trail sniffing out the corruption of the leftist radicals who are now in positions of power in America. He is a superb organizer and communicator. He, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and other talk radio people have huge audiences. They are putting out the information, and their listeners are showing up at town hall meetings ready to ask tough questions. The leftists in power are overreacting, accusing ordinary Americans of being part of a mob. The more they overreact, the more more they lose their grip on power. Saul Alinsky could not have written a better scenario.

Michelle Malkin, another brilliant analyst and researcher, has written a book, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team on the corruption, and is herself a superb communicator. Glenn says his weekly radio audience is 8 million, and his daily television audience on Fox is 3.5 million. He urges his audience to research and speak out. Many are doing just that. All of the people mentioned above are masters of the organizing techniques and principles taught by Saul Alinsky, though they would shudder to be identified with him, because they believe he was a man of the left. Rush Limbaugh's audience is closer to 20 million. I believe the rankings in audience size are Limbaugh first, Hannity second, and Beck third. Michael Savage, another powerful communicator, also ranks high, but I don't see him as an organizer of people, like Beck is. Savage is more of a self-promoter, ala Obama.

Power to the people, or power for the Obamas? In defense of Saul Alinsky: Part Three

Saul Alinsky was all about helping people obtain power. Barack Obama used Alinsky's organizing principles to promote the cult of Obama. It was not power to the people. It was power for the Obamas! Unfortunately, there were enough people in the United States who were willing to let it happen. Now, there is a pushback, a powerful grassroots movement led by talk radio hosts and hostesses.

Have we come full circle? In defense of Saul Alinsky: Part Two

Are we on the verge of a revolution in America? I don't know, but there is surely a great amount of discontent, and masses of people are stirring to protest too much government control. Where can we find literature to guide those who wish to stand up against too much government power and control? Saul Alinsky notes in Rules for Radicals that "Once the American Revolution was done with we can find very little (literature) besides the right of revolution that is laid down in the Declaration of Independence as a fundamental right." Then Alinsky points us to this from Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Saul Alinsky was one of the few who studied this question and came up with action plans. While reading Alinsky, I am also reading W. Cleon Skousen's wonderful book
The 5000 Year Leap: Principles of Freedom 101. Skousen points out that we should not get hung up on right versus left, since both extremes lead to tyranny. Alinsky, too, was not fond of ideology: "I know that all revolutions must have ideology to spur them on. That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic."

So, Alinsky focuses on training organizers working in and for an open society. What is the ideology of the organizer? The question mark! Alinsky writes, "Some say it's no coincidence that the question mark is an inverted plow, breaking up the hard soil of beliefs, and preparing for the new growth." The organizer's most frequent word is "why?" Does that mean the organizer is rudderless, asks Alinsky? No, because the organizer is "free from the shackles of dogma. In the end he has one conviction - a belief that if people have the power to act, in the long run they will, most of the time reach the right decisions...Believing in people, the radical has the job of organizing them so that they will have the power and opportunity to best meet each unforeseeable future crisis as they move ahead in their eternal search for those values of equality, justice, freedom, peace, a deep concern for the preciousness of human life, and all those rights and values propounded by Judaeo-Christianity and the democratic politicial tradition. Democracy is not an end, but the best means toward achieving those values."

In Defense of Saul Alinsky: Part One

Barack Obama has given Saul Alinsky a bad name. Men like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who badmouth Alinsky because Obama studied Alinsky, are more like Alinsky than Alinsky himself! I knew Mr. Alinsky in the 1960s. I had him to my house for dinner one wonderful evening. I actually cherish the memory of that evening, which was filled with laughter and great conversation about how America can achieve the ideals of its founders. This was a man who loved America and what it stands for. I never thought of him as a man of the left, which I guess he was. In those days, I never thought about right and left, and he certainly did not talk in those terms.

What Saul Alinsky was all about was citizen participation: making the ideals of America come alive for all citizens. I had previously read only one of Alinsky's books, Reveille for Radicals. The book that gets quoted nowadays is Rules for Radicals, written by him in 1971. I checked it out recently on interlibrary loan. I will quote liberally from it in this and later posts, so you can read for yourself what this man stood for.

First, some background. Alinsky writes about those of us who came into adulthood in the 60s:

"Today's generation is desperately trying to make sense out of their lives and their world. Most of them are products of the middle class. They watched (their parents idea of success) lead to tranquilizers, alcohol, long-term-endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration, and the disillusionment of the "good life." They have seen the almost unbelievable idiocy of our political leadership - in the past political leaders were regarded with respect and almost reverence; today they are viewed with contempt. We are living in a world of mass media which daily exposes society's innate hypocrisy, its contradictions and the apparent failure of almost every facet of our social and political life. The young have seen their participatory democracy turn into its antithesis - nihilistic bombing and murder. The political panaceas of the past, such as the revolutions in Russia and China, have become the same old stuff under a different name. The search for freedom does not seem to have any road or destination. The young are inundated with a barrage of information and facts so overwhelming that the world has come to seem an utter bedlam, which has them spinning in a frenzy, looking for what man has always looked for from the beginning of time, a way of life that has some meaning or sense.

Today's generation says, "I don't want to spend my life the way my family and friends have. I want to do something, to create, to be me, "to do my own thing, to live." The older generation, on the other hand, is no less confused. If they are less vocal or conscious, it may be because they can escape to a past when the world was simpler. They can still cling to the old values in the simple hope that everything will work out somehow, some way."

Well, that was a pretty accurate description of how things were back in the late sixties. Now, how about the ideas that Alinsky sought to promulgate? First, he expresses dismay that the people who were trying to change things were such poor communicators.

"Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience - and gives full respect to the other's values - would have ruled out attacks on the American flag. The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag, while the flag itself remains the glorious symbol of America's hopes and aspirations, and he would have conveyed this message to his audience. On another level of communication, humor is essential, for through humor, much is accepted that would have been rejected if presented seriously. This is a sad and lonely generation. It laughs too little, and this, too, is tragic."

Who excels today in the arts of communication and humor? Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck!

"Let us not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight: I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Just a few of the violent episodes here in America that we have experienced would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective... A revolutionary organizer must agitate, create disenchantment, and discontent to produce if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate (regarding change).

A final word on our system. The democratic ideal springs from the ideas of liberty, equality, majority rule through free elections, protection of the rights of minorities, and freedom to subscribe to multiple loyalties in matters of religion, economics and politics rather than to a total loyalty to the state. The spirit of democracy is the idea of importance and worth of the individual, and faith in the kind of world where the individual can achieve as much of his potential as possible...The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself. Tocqueville gravely warned that unless individual citizens were regularly involved in the action of governing themselves, self-government would pass from the scene. Citizen participation is the animating spirit and force in a society predicated on voluntarism.

Here we are concerned with the vast mass of our people who, thwarted through lack of interest or opportunity , or both, do not participate in the endless responsibilities of citizenship and are resigned to lives determined by others. To lose your identity as a citizen of democracy is but a step from losing your identity as a person... That person sinks further into apathy, anonymity, and depersonalization. The result is that he comes to depend on public authority and a state of civic-sclerosis sets in... There can be no darker or more devastating tragedy than the death of man's faith in himself and in his power to direct his future.... Together we may find what we're looking for - laughter, beauty, love, and the chance to create."

.

I guess they thought we wouldn't notice

The lead story in the August 7 WSJ is about Congress spending $550 million to buy 8 new jets, which will "augment a fleet of about two dozen passenger jets maintained by the Air Force" for federal officials. Did the congressmen and women think we wouldn't notice?

The planes are well equipped: "all leather seats, sleeping accommodations, and two large galleys for cooking." Last year House members spent about 3000 days overseas on taxpayer-funded trips.

"Dreams about your money"

"I have dreams about your money, Dad."
"I don't doubt it for a minute, Sara."
"You know, all that money you are going to pay me for cleaning my room?"
"Okay, Sara: I'll pay you one dollar, but then you have to pay me one dollar, too, if I have to help you clean it."
"Okay, Dad, It's a deal!"

Their Governments Have Plenty of Money!

Fouad Ajami writes in the August 6 WSJ about the pitiful living conditions among the 360 million people in Arab countries. Even with all of their oil, "tens of millions of their people live in poverty. Unemployment rates are the highest in the world. All Arab countries combined have a smaller manufacturing output than Finland, a country of 5 million people."

Nevertheless, writes Ajami. unlike George W. Bush's "diplomacy of freedom," our new president's policy is one of "the safety of the status quo, rather than the risks of liberty." I am putting Ajami down as an author I wish to read more, because he is a truth-teller.

"Deflecting Sexual Impulses"

I was intrigued to read an article in the August 6 WSJ. The American Psychological Association, with 150,000 members worldwide, has plans to promote a new approach to sexuality. "If a client believes that affirming his same sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses, or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God." One man interviewed for the article likens his choice to that of a "recovering alcoholic resisting a drink." "There are a lot of us out there who simply want to live in congruence with our faith," he said.

Yeah, and that goes for us heterosexuals, too! "Learning to deflect sexual impulses" is something most of us heterosexuals have to learn, too! There may be a whole host of other "impulses" that all of us humans may have to deal with in order to be "congruent with our faith," not to mention happy in our marriages! How about the impulse of anger? Do we give in to it, feel self-pity, then lash out in anger to justify our feelings of victimization? That is one I struggle with; what impulses do you struggle with?

Then, there is this question for the psychologists: what about the person who could care less about "congruence with his faith," or has no faith at all? Do you counsel that person to forget about "deflecting sexual impulses?"

Do American Jews have a suicidal death wish?

Eliott Abrahms has a superb piece in the August 1-2 Weekend Wall Street Journal showing how Obama's leftist ideology is threatening the state of Israel. Instead of focusing on Iran, the American president's ideological bent causes him to see every Middle East problem as stemming from the Israeli-Palestinian problem, especially Israel's settlement-building jobs for Palestinians. Meanwhile, Iran's Jew-hating regime continues on its merry way to their nuclear solution for Israel. Nevertheless, American Jews, perhaps blinded by their own leftist ideology, voted 80% for Obama. Currently in Israel only 6% of the population believes Obama is pro-Israel, when 88% had seen George W. Bush that way.

Uphill? No Problem! Downhill? No Problem!

Look who is riding uphill! I told you she did not need training wheels! Well, I have to end this post now, because she wants to go back out on the road!

An Important Number to Remember

Sara to her dad: "Is your grandpa dead, Daddy?"
"Do you mean, my dad? Yes, he is dead. I'm sorry you never got to know him. He would have really enjoyed being with you."
"I'll call Jesus right now and ask him to bring grandpa back here for a visit."
Sara dials 420 345-8065 on her toy cell phone. "Hello Jesus?" "I need you to bring my grandpa here for a visit. Thank you."
"Sara, how did you know the telephone number for Jesus?"
"I have it right here on my phone. See, it is 420 345-8065."