Category: Frivolity
Posted by: an okie gardener
Joke, from Theo.
Category: Religion and History
Posted by: an okie gardener
Amazing if true. According to this news report, the Ethiopian Patriarch will allow public viewing of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ethiopian Church has long claimed to be hiding the Ark, formerly kept in the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Link from Breitbart.
I've posted before on the Ark in Ethiopia.
I've posted before on the Ark in Ethiopia.
24/06: For Freedom
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Brits at Their Best reminds us that today is the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.
On June 24th 1314, Robert the Bruce and the forces of Scotland defeated the forces of Edward II at Bannockburn and established Scottish independence. Six years later, on April 6th 1320, in the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scots said exactly why they had fought -
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Freedom.
The American Revolution did not spring fully-formed from the earth. Our ancestors stood in a long line of those seeking to live by their own laws and customs, not under those of an arbitrary tyranny.
Farmer wondered if Obama tears up during Casablanca. I wonder if he is moved during Braveheart.
On June 24th 1314, Robert the Bruce and the forces of Scotland defeated the forces of Edward II at Bannockburn and established Scottish independence. Six years later, on April 6th 1320, in the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scots said exactly why they had fought -
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Freedom.
The American Revolution did not spring fully-formed from the earth. Our ancestors stood in a long line of those seeking to live by their own laws and customs, not under those of an arbitrary tyranny.
Farmer wondered if Obama tears up during Casablanca. I wonder if he is moved during Braveheart.
24/06: What Price Health Care?
I agree with the President on the basics:
"Health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it's a fiscal imperative."
"When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity...."
So far so good.
Where we part company. Why I cannot support his current plan.
The President often engages in sloppy thinking and lazy rhetoric in pursuit of his political goals. Perhaps he does this because he holds his audience in low esteem. Perhaps he does this because he can. Perhaps there are other more compelling explanations.
No matter, the President loves the straw man, and he loves the false choice.
Quoting the President:
"We also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what - who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that's worked in the past. They'll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors."
I hate it when those guys show up. They are always up to no good. Their goal is always the same: work against the public weal for the special interests. Seriously, and forgive me for the repetition, this president engages in this brand of straw man sophistry way too much. This is a continuing disappointment for me. He should abandon this low road of public discourse.
Does he have a point?
True, conservatives worry that this massive government intervention into health care is the first step to socialized medicine (better known under the euphemistic umbrella of a "single-payer system").
Is this just another example of the paranoid strain of American politics? Are conservatives merely blurring the real issue with scare tactics concerning an unlikely eventuality?
Here is one very personal reason I think not: EVERY thoughtful liberal I have ever met has eventually admitted to me that European-style or Canadian-style national health care is exactly what they wanted--if not now, eventually.
Why? In general, my liberal friends tend to see government-guaranteed universal health care as the "smart" and humane solution. In fact, I hear plenty of discontent that the President is not asking for the "whole enchilada" right now. The grousing is often tempered by the consolation that this half-measure is merely what is politically possible at this moment. But, rest assured, they tell one another, we're gonna get there eventually. This is no secret. National Health Care has been a staple for Democratic Party platforms and public policy since FDR.
The President, who fancies himself an honest man steeped in nuance, ought to deal with this question more frankly. But don't blame conservatives for viewing this latest installment of a long running national drama in the context of a much larger philosophical-political discussion.
President False Choice.
"So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we're doing, and that's OK, that's just not true. We have a long-standing critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy. It's burdening families. It's burdening businesses. And it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?
"So -- so if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we're going to have to bring about some serious changes."
Translation: either you are FOR my plan or you are against reforming health care. My way or the highway.
Sound familiar?
Either you are for my $787 billion stimulus bill or you are for doing nothing to combat this recession.
These are false choices. There are other options.
True enough, we are in a health care crisis--and it is a crisis of sustainability. True enough, the health care debate has shifted beneath our feet.
Why? The Party is Over.
One day, we will look back wistfully on this moment and recall our privileged status regarding health care in America. Although we have NOT spent a lot of time appreciating the wonder of the current system, the vast majority of us have been privy to the best-trained physicians, the most advanced medical technologies, and the most comprehensive network of doctors and facilities ever assembled in the annals of medical history.
Those days are necessarily coming to a close. WHY?
Not because of the humanitarian impulse. For decades, we have been very close to totally deaf to the sad refrain of "forty-something million uninsured" fellow citizens. Why so unresponsive?
Two Reasons: the claim is mostly a distorted and transparent political manipulation; and, more importantly, the vast majority of us were thriving under the status quo. We are not a blindly utilitarian society, but when the great bulk of the citizenry are prospering under a given regime, they are loath to sacrifice their advantage for a disadvantaged minority. In that regard, nothing has changed. Collective compassion will not be the impetus for the massive change in the offing.
What is different this time?
The UNSUSTAINABLE rising costs.
Ironically, we are victims of our own success. The wonders of medical research and development and production have outdistanced our financial resources. Most of us assume we are inherently deserving of the very best and most-advanced medical care. Ironically, conservatives even more than liberals seem to have swallowed this sense of entitlement when it comes to health care. Unlike products in our consumer culture where we make choices commensurate with our ability to pay, most of us assume that we are due the very best health care available regardless the cost.
In this way, the one-payer system is completely disingenuous. As a society, we CANNOT afford to pay for health care through government agency anymore than we can afford our current system of health care as an employee benefit. It is just not credible to believe that we are going to provide coverage to fifty million extra people and pay less money through the magic of bureaucratic streamlining. Something has to give. The obvious solution is cost control, which means rationing care, which means the Golden Age of carte blanche health care is concluding--no matter which road we take.
How we get there remains undetermined, but the ultimate destination is certain.
We can no longer enjoy unlimited health care regardless of our ability to pay. Socialized medicine is one way to combat this economic problem. In fact, socialized medicine is probably a less painful way to inaugurate the era of limits than doing nothing. Socialized medicine means a lot of changes that we will not view as positive--but this may be unavoidable. However, it would be nice if Democrats would be straight with us about the real problems and their actual proposed solution.
Having said that, I still cannot support this framework at this time. The planned Obama-Pelosi cram-down is an impending disaster; it is bad politics for them and for us. It is a drastic and irrevocable step. We would be better off defeating this attempt at social revolution and waiting for a moment when there is more political equity and, therefore, more honesty and more bipartisan buy-in. Also, the crisis may not be at a point in which the sense of urgency is such that partisans are actually willing to come together for the common good. This is one of those cases in which both parties need to come to terms and go forward with a compromise solution. There are better ideas out there. We need to wait for an atmosphere more conducive to positive change.
"Health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it's a fiscal imperative."
"When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity...."
So far so good.
Where we part company. Why I cannot support his current plan.
The President often engages in sloppy thinking and lazy rhetoric in pursuit of his political goals. Perhaps he does this because he holds his audience in low esteem. Perhaps he does this because he can. Perhaps there are other more compelling explanations.
No matter, the President loves the straw man, and he loves the false choice.
Quoting the President:
"We also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what - who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that's worked in the past. They'll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors."
I hate it when those guys show up. They are always up to no good. Their goal is always the same: work against the public weal for the special interests. Seriously, and forgive me for the repetition, this president engages in this brand of straw man sophistry way too much. This is a continuing disappointment for me. He should abandon this low road of public discourse.
Does he have a point?
True, conservatives worry that this massive government intervention into health care is the first step to socialized medicine (better known under the euphemistic umbrella of a "single-payer system").
Is this just another example of the paranoid strain of American politics? Are conservatives merely blurring the real issue with scare tactics concerning an unlikely eventuality?
Here is one very personal reason I think not: EVERY thoughtful liberal I have ever met has eventually admitted to me that European-style or Canadian-style national health care is exactly what they wanted--if not now, eventually.
Why? In general, my liberal friends tend to see government-guaranteed universal health care as the "smart" and humane solution. In fact, I hear plenty of discontent that the President is not asking for the "whole enchilada" right now. The grousing is often tempered by the consolation that this half-measure is merely what is politically possible at this moment. But, rest assured, they tell one another, we're gonna get there eventually. This is no secret. National Health Care has been a staple for Democratic Party platforms and public policy since FDR.
The President, who fancies himself an honest man steeped in nuance, ought to deal with this question more frankly. But don't blame conservatives for viewing this latest installment of a long running national drama in the context of a much larger philosophical-political discussion.
President False Choice.
"So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we're doing, and that's OK, that's just not true. We have a long-standing critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy. It's burdening families. It's burdening businesses. And it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?
"So -- so if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we're going to have to bring about some serious changes."
Translation: either you are FOR my plan or you are against reforming health care. My way or the highway.
Sound familiar?
Either you are for my $787 billion stimulus bill or you are for doing nothing to combat this recession.
These are false choices. There are other options.
True enough, we are in a health care crisis--and it is a crisis of sustainability. True enough, the health care debate has shifted beneath our feet.
Why? The Party is Over.
One day, we will look back wistfully on this moment and recall our privileged status regarding health care in America. Although we have NOT spent a lot of time appreciating the wonder of the current system, the vast majority of us have been privy to the best-trained physicians, the most advanced medical technologies, and the most comprehensive network of doctors and facilities ever assembled in the annals of medical history.
Those days are necessarily coming to a close. WHY?
Not because of the humanitarian impulse. For decades, we have been very close to totally deaf to the sad refrain of "forty-something million uninsured" fellow citizens. Why so unresponsive?
Two Reasons: the claim is mostly a distorted and transparent political manipulation; and, more importantly, the vast majority of us were thriving under the status quo. We are not a blindly utilitarian society, but when the great bulk of the citizenry are prospering under a given regime, they are loath to sacrifice their advantage for a disadvantaged minority. In that regard, nothing has changed. Collective compassion will not be the impetus for the massive change in the offing.
What is different this time?
The UNSUSTAINABLE rising costs.
Ironically, we are victims of our own success. The wonders of medical research and development and production have outdistanced our financial resources. Most of us assume we are inherently deserving of the very best and most-advanced medical care. Ironically, conservatives even more than liberals seem to have swallowed this sense of entitlement when it comes to health care. Unlike products in our consumer culture where we make choices commensurate with our ability to pay, most of us assume that we are due the very best health care available regardless the cost.
In this way, the one-payer system is completely disingenuous. As a society, we CANNOT afford to pay for health care through government agency anymore than we can afford our current system of health care as an employee benefit. It is just not credible to believe that we are going to provide coverage to fifty million extra people and pay less money through the magic of bureaucratic streamlining. Something has to give. The obvious solution is cost control, which means rationing care, which means the Golden Age of carte blanche health care is concluding--no matter which road we take.
How we get there remains undetermined, but the ultimate destination is certain.
We can no longer enjoy unlimited health care regardless of our ability to pay. Socialized medicine is one way to combat this economic problem. In fact, socialized medicine is probably a less painful way to inaugurate the era of limits than doing nothing. Socialized medicine means a lot of changes that we will not view as positive--but this may be unavoidable. However, it would be nice if Democrats would be straight with us about the real problems and their actual proposed solution.
Having said that, I still cannot support this framework at this time. The planned Obama-Pelosi cram-down is an impending disaster; it is bad politics for them and for us. It is a drastic and irrevocable step. We would be better off defeating this attempt at social revolution and waiting for a moment when there is more political equity and, therefore, more honesty and more bipartisan buy-in. Also, the crisis may not be at a point in which the sense of urgency is such that partisans are actually willing to come together for the common good. This is one of those cases in which both parties need to come to terms and go forward with a compromise solution. There are better ideas out there. We need to wait for an atmosphere more conducive to positive change.
23/06: The President Speaks on Iran
Quoting the President of the United States, Barack Obama. from his press briefing today:
"The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days."
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."
"In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers. And so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing."
"We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard.
"Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion. That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government."
--------------------
While I have not had time to go through the entirety of the press conference, in my mind, there is no question that this is a strong condemnation of the Iranian government from the President of the United States. It is much more in line with what I was craving over the past few days. In fact, it is a wonderfully penetrating critique. I would be a hypocritical ingrate not to acknowledge and appreciate this gesture.
Having said that, I have a few admittedly impertinent questions:
1. Does the President still entertain delusions that we can negotiate with these people?
2. I first READ online those first few graphs concerning Iran--and I punched my fist in the air a couple of times. YEAH BABY! SOLIDARITY! Then I caught the video and watched him deliver those lines. LACKLUSTER. Will the President ever register a similar contempt in his voice for the brutal and oppressive Iranian regime that he regularly musters for the Republican opposition and the previous administration? The words were adequate--but where was the emotion? The outrage? Was his heart really in this?
Blasting an anti-U.S. power just seems to go against his basic wiring. The closest he gets to real pique is when he chastises the Iranians for employing the "tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries." My hunch is that this staple of Obama speak proved close enough to his regular stump speech against the GOP that it activated some muscle memory impulse of manifested ire. Otherwise, he never really gets up a full head of steam until he starts talking about the impending showdown over health care and mendacious insurance companies who have erroneously charged that government has a history of inefficiency. Now there's some real dastardly behavior that the President can sink his teeth into.
"The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days."
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."
"In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers. And so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing."
"We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard.
"Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion. That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government."
--------------------
While I have not had time to go through the entirety of the press conference, in my mind, there is no question that this is a strong condemnation of the Iranian government from the President of the United States. It is much more in line with what I was craving over the past few days. In fact, it is a wonderfully penetrating critique. I would be a hypocritical ingrate not to acknowledge and appreciate this gesture.
Having said that, I have a few admittedly impertinent questions:
1. Does the President still entertain delusions that we can negotiate with these people?
2. I first READ online those first few graphs concerning Iran--and I punched my fist in the air a couple of times. YEAH BABY! SOLIDARITY! Then I caught the video and watched him deliver those lines. LACKLUSTER. Will the President ever register a similar contempt in his voice for the brutal and oppressive Iranian regime that he regularly musters for the Republican opposition and the previous administration? The words were adequate--but where was the emotion? The outrage? Was his heart really in this?
Blasting an anti-U.S. power just seems to go against his basic wiring. The closest he gets to real pique is when he chastises the Iranians for employing the "tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries." My hunch is that this staple of Obama speak proved close enough to his regular stump speech against the GOP that it activated some muscle memory impulse of manifested ire. Otherwise, he never really gets up a full head of steam until he starts talking about the impending showdown over health care and mendacious insurance companies who have erroneously charged that government has a history of inefficiency. Now there's some real dastardly behavior that the President can sink his teeth into.
The invitation to Iranian diplomats to celebrate the 4th of July with us is still on. From the State Department transcript of today's press conference. Full transcript.
QUESTION: This isn’t a frivolous question, really. Do you think it’s still appropriate to have Iranians come to these July 4th parties under the circumstances? I mean, is there any thought being given to like, rescinding invitations?
MR. KELLY: No, there’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats.
QUESTION: It’s appropriate to have a social dialogue with them if they come?
MR. KELLY: Well, we have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran, and we tried many years of isolation and we’re pursuing a different path now.
The Obama Adminstration is absolutely flat on its feet in responding to the ongoing crisis in Iran. The regime is openly crushing its own people, and we are inviting tyrants to watch fireworks on the 4th.
Reaction has started around the conservative blogosphere.
QUESTION: This isn’t a frivolous question, really. Do you think it’s still appropriate to have Iranians come to these July 4th parties under the circumstances? I mean, is there any thought being given to like, rescinding invitations?
MR. KELLY: No, there’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats.
QUESTION: It’s appropriate to have a social dialogue with them if they come?
MR. KELLY: Well, we have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran, and we tried many years of isolation and we’re pursuing a different path now.
The Obama Adminstration is absolutely flat on its feet in responding to the ongoing crisis in Iran. The regime is openly crushing its own people, and we are inviting tyrants to watch fireworks on the 4th.
Reaction has started around the conservative blogosphere.
21/06: The Love of the Father
In the midst of his humiliation and desperation, the prodigal son experienced an epiphany: his father's hired men had a better life than he did. He resolved to go back home and say, "Father, I've sinned against God, I've sinned before you; I don't deserve to be called your son. Take me on as a hired hand."
He picked himself up and went home to his father.
When he was still a long way off, his father saw him. His heart pounding, his father ran out, embraced him, and kissed him. The son started his speech: "Father, I've sinned against God, I've sinned before you; I don't deserve to be called your son ever again."
But the father wasn't listening. He was calling to the servants, "Quick. Bring him clean clothes and dress him. Put the family ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Kill the fatted calf. We're going to feast! We're going to celebrate! My son has come home! My son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, but now is found."
I have viewed the Parable of the Lost Son through the prism of at least three different life perspectives.
1. As a child, I understood the protection and the power of my father. Fathers are fearless and wise--fully capable of insulating little boys from the cruelties and meanness of the world. When trouble was on the horizon, his face turned to a stony mask of determination and deadly force, intimidating evil doers back into the shadows. Two young punks at the Van Nuys post office, carelessly menacing a citizen with a small child for some kicks, quickly came to understand that the game had suddenly turned sour--and the air was now thick with danger. In the face of his terrorizing scowl, they backed down. What would have happened if they had not? Later--but not too much. My dad sitting in his big American sedan at the top of the hill, with a baseball bat on the seat and his .357 literally strapped to his leg. Absolutely crazy and scary to think back on it now. But no one was going to insinuate that a neighborhood street was not safe for his son to ride his bike on. A bad bunch that did not fear the law would understand force. The head of a bullying clan had miscalculated. A foolish individual was on the edge of bringing a knife to a gun fight. They backed down. I rode my bike without incident.
Like John Wayne, "he wouldn't be wronged, he wouldn't be insulted, and he wouldn't be laid a hand on. He didn't do those things to other people, and he expected the same from them." "If the world was not black and white, why the hell not?"
As a child, I understood perfectly why the prodigal went home. Home was safe. Dad was strong. Dad was powerful enough to save him. The real question: why would you leave in the first place?
2. There was a moment when my dad stopped being John Wayne and became Gene Hackman--still bigger than life and blustering, but now balding, paunchy, and flawed. No longer was he inerrant or bullet proof. His black and white world suddenly turned upside down. He was now confused and battered, flat-out wrong sometimes--but still counter-punching and looking desperately for vindication.
As a young man, I understood why the prodigal left. It was time to make your mark outside of the old man's shadow. Too much advice--not all of it good, really. Too much pessimism. Too much bitterness. What the hell did he know? How hard could all of this really be?
When I was a young man, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But as I matured, I was astonished by how much he had learned in a just few short years.
~~my apologies to Mark Twain
3. I have said this before, but I was born again, again, on 12 May 1999. That is the day I became a father. It was the day I saw the world anew. It was the day I lost control of my life and my emotions, and it was the best-slash-most important day of my life. It was not until that moment that I understood the true import of the story of the prodigal.
The utter sublimeness of the parable of the Lost Son is the reaction of the father. When I think about him looking down that road and seeing his son, I can feel the absolute rapture of the moment. Can it be? Is it really him? How many times, I wonder, had this father seen his son walking down that road in the happy recesses of his imagination? How many times had this father caught a glimpse of someone walking down this road and been carried away with the momentary sanguine hope that it was his son? No, it's him this time! It really is him this time! This boy was gone. Gone forever. But there he is! Praise God! There he is!
The absolute perfection of the metaphor is that God the Father might actually love us as much as we love our sons. This is the way God feels about me? Wow! This truly is a loving God. Yes. He let me go. Yes. He let me make my mistakes. But there he is, weeping with joy at my return and all is forgiven. It didn't matter why the boy left; it didn't matter what the boy did while he was gone. The only thing of real consequence was that the son was back. The strength of that metaphor was completely lost on me before I experienced fatherly love for my two sons. Now it is the most powerful illustration in the Holy Book--the very heart of the Gospel.
An Aside: for me, this is strong evidence that Jesus really was divine, or really had a family somewhere, or someone other than Jesus imagined this parable.
So, my third life perspective on this story, in addition to my added comprehension of God the Father, is the view of my own father as only another father can know him. As a father, I can now fully understand the true power and scope of my father's love for me.
It's a love without end, Amen.
I don't say this nearly enough. Thanks, Dad. Happy Father's Day, 2009.
He picked himself up and went home to his father.
When he was still a long way off, his father saw him. His heart pounding, his father ran out, embraced him, and kissed him. The son started his speech: "Father, I've sinned against God, I've sinned before you; I don't deserve to be called your son ever again."
But the father wasn't listening. He was calling to the servants, "Quick. Bring him clean clothes and dress him. Put the family ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Kill the fatted calf. We're going to feast! We're going to celebrate! My son has come home! My son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, but now is found."
I have viewed the Parable of the Lost Son through the prism of at least three different life perspectives.
1. As a child, I understood the protection and the power of my father. Fathers are fearless and wise--fully capable of insulating little boys from the cruelties and meanness of the world. When trouble was on the horizon, his face turned to a stony mask of determination and deadly force, intimidating evil doers back into the shadows. Two young punks at the Van Nuys post office, carelessly menacing a citizen with a small child for some kicks, quickly came to understand that the game had suddenly turned sour--and the air was now thick with danger. In the face of his terrorizing scowl, they backed down. What would have happened if they had not? Later--but not too much. My dad sitting in his big American sedan at the top of the hill, with a baseball bat on the seat and his .357 literally strapped to his leg. Absolutely crazy and scary to think back on it now. But no one was going to insinuate that a neighborhood street was not safe for his son to ride his bike on. A bad bunch that did not fear the law would understand force. The head of a bullying clan had miscalculated. A foolish individual was on the edge of bringing a knife to a gun fight. They backed down. I rode my bike without incident.
Like John Wayne, "he wouldn't be wronged, he wouldn't be insulted, and he wouldn't be laid a hand on. He didn't do those things to other people, and he expected the same from them." "If the world was not black and white, why the hell not?"
As a child, I understood perfectly why the prodigal went home. Home was safe. Dad was strong. Dad was powerful enough to save him. The real question: why would you leave in the first place?
2. There was a moment when my dad stopped being John Wayne and became Gene Hackman--still bigger than life and blustering, but now balding, paunchy, and flawed. No longer was he inerrant or bullet proof. His black and white world suddenly turned upside down. He was now confused and battered, flat-out wrong sometimes--but still counter-punching and looking desperately for vindication.
As a young man, I understood why the prodigal left. It was time to make your mark outside of the old man's shadow. Too much advice--not all of it good, really. Too much pessimism. Too much bitterness. What the hell did he know? How hard could all of this really be?
When I was a young man, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But as I matured, I was astonished by how much he had learned in a just few short years.
~~my apologies to Mark Twain
3. I have said this before, but I was born again, again, on 12 May 1999. That is the day I became a father. It was the day I saw the world anew. It was the day I lost control of my life and my emotions, and it was the best-slash-most important day of my life. It was not until that moment that I understood the true import of the story of the prodigal.
The utter sublimeness of the parable of the Lost Son is the reaction of the father. When I think about him looking down that road and seeing his son, I can feel the absolute rapture of the moment. Can it be? Is it really him? How many times, I wonder, had this father seen his son walking down that road in the happy recesses of his imagination? How many times had this father caught a glimpse of someone walking down this road and been carried away with the momentary sanguine hope that it was his son? No, it's him this time! It really is him this time! This boy was gone. Gone forever. But there he is! Praise God! There he is!
The absolute perfection of the metaphor is that God the Father might actually love us as much as we love our sons. This is the way God feels about me? Wow! This truly is a loving God. Yes. He let me go. Yes. He let me make my mistakes. But there he is, weeping with joy at my return and all is forgiven. It didn't matter why the boy left; it didn't matter what the boy did while he was gone. The only thing of real consequence was that the son was back. The strength of that metaphor was completely lost on me before I experienced fatherly love for my two sons. Now it is the most powerful illustration in the Holy Book--the very heart of the Gospel.
An Aside: for me, this is strong evidence that Jesus really was divine, or really had a family somewhere, or someone other than Jesus imagined this parable.
So, my third life perspective on this story, in addition to my added comprehension of God the Father, is the view of my own father as only another father can know him. As a father, I can now fully understand the true power and scope of my father's love for me.
It's a love without end, Amen.
I don't say this nearly enough. Thanks, Dad. Happy Father's Day, 2009.
In my previous post, I briefly considered the official White House reaction to the Iranian Protest.
In a nutshell, I am not altogether offended by President Obama's caution. By eschewing the traditional American harsh and unequivocal response in similar cases, the President wisely passes up the temptation to make the United States a center of attention in this internal struggle.
Even more importantly, as I intimated, and the Okie Gardener better articulated, we are "not giving unrealistic expectations to the demonstrators." On a macro moral level, the instances in which freedom-loving dissidents rise up, propelled by the false hopes of a decisive United States intervention, have too often concluded with heartbreaking and cruelly tragic misfortune.
On the other hand, by staying mum while the multitudes bravely take to the streets in pursuit of life, liberty, and peaceful change strikes many of us as craven--or at least quite peculiar. It is in our nature to stand up and yell out our support for and solidarity with our brothers in arms across the seas. As I said before, we have been doing this for more than two hundred years.
However, Obama Americanism is not quite that reflexive (at least not in the same direction). It is a studied skepticism for notions like "natural rights" and the inherent benevolence of American-style democracy. Barack Obama is the first president from a generation of Americans educated in the nation's finest institutions of higher learning transformed during the 1970s and beyond by the advent and establishment of a New Left ethos. At Columbia and Harvard one learns to appreciate cultural relativism and give great weight to the murky and sometimes inconsistent history of American foreign policy and the sometimes hypocritical struggle for freedom at home. President Obama comes to us steeped in nuance, irony, and cynicism.
Is that Enough?
Sometimes we want more than the detached cool of the knowing academic. Sometimes we want and need an official cri de coeur from the President of the United States. Sometimes we need some Daniel Webster.
A Thought Experiment:
When I watch the scene in Casablanca in which Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo orchestrates the public singing of "La Marseillaise," drowning out the Nazis and "Die Wacht am Rhein," I cannot help myself: I tear up (watch here via You Tube--if you have never seen it, seriously, do yourself a favor).
Vive le France!
Vive Michael Curtiz!
God Bless America!
Godspeed to the brave souls in the streets of Tehran!
My Question:
I wonder, does Barack Obama cry when he watches that scene?
Do you get weepy watching that scene?
-----
PREDICTION: For the record, I think the pressure is mounting for the President to come out strongly in support of the protesters. Regardless of whether he feels solidarity in his heart for their cause, I expect an eloquent statement identifying our history with the democratic yearnings of the masses in Iran.
In a nutshell, I am not altogether offended by President Obama's caution. By eschewing the traditional American harsh and unequivocal response in similar cases, the President wisely passes up the temptation to make the United States a center of attention in this internal struggle.
Even more importantly, as I intimated, and the Okie Gardener better articulated, we are "not giving unrealistic expectations to the demonstrators." On a macro moral level, the instances in which freedom-loving dissidents rise up, propelled by the false hopes of a decisive United States intervention, have too often concluded with heartbreaking and cruelly tragic misfortune.
On the other hand, by staying mum while the multitudes bravely take to the streets in pursuit of life, liberty, and peaceful change strikes many of us as craven--or at least quite peculiar. It is in our nature to stand up and yell out our support for and solidarity with our brothers in arms across the seas. As I said before, we have been doing this for more than two hundred years.
However, Obama Americanism is not quite that reflexive (at least not in the same direction). It is a studied skepticism for notions like "natural rights" and the inherent benevolence of American-style democracy. Barack Obama is the first president from a generation of Americans educated in the nation's finest institutions of higher learning transformed during the 1970s and beyond by the advent and establishment of a New Left ethos. At Columbia and Harvard one learns to appreciate cultural relativism and give great weight to the murky and sometimes inconsistent history of American foreign policy and the sometimes hypocritical struggle for freedom at home. President Obama comes to us steeped in nuance, irony, and cynicism.
Is that Enough?
Sometimes we want more than the detached cool of the knowing academic. Sometimes we want and need an official cri de coeur from the President of the United States. Sometimes we need some Daniel Webster.
A Thought Experiment:
When I watch the scene in Casablanca in which Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo orchestrates the public singing of "La Marseillaise," drowning out the Nazis and "Die Wacht am Rhein," I cannot help myself: I tear up (watch here via You Tube--if you have never seen it, seriously, do yourself a favor).
Vive le France!
Vive Michael Curtiz!
God Bless America!
Godspeed to the brave souls in the streets of Tehran!
My Question:
I wonder, does Barack Obama cry when he watches that scene?
Do you get weepy watching that scene?
-----
PREDICTION: For the record, I think the pressure is mounting for the President to come out strongly in support of the protesters. Regardless of whether he feels solidarity in his heart for their cause, I expect an eloquent statement identifying our history with the democratic yearnings of the masses in Iran.
1. I am not convinced that the recent election in Iran was "stolen." First of all, Iranian elections are NOT "free" elections (as we generally understand that notion). As a result of the unorthodox nature of an Iranian canvass, it is nearly impossible to obtain much perspective on what exactly happened there. Moreover, there was some polling prior to voting that indicated incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really was the overwhelming choice of the electorate. Evidently, there is a very large constituency of hardliners in the Iranian electorate who are just as nutty as their fearless leader. Maybe he really won. Maybe he cheated. Who knows? Does it matter? Not Really. Why?
2. Whether the election was stolen is beside the point for at least two reasons.
--The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a position of very limited authority. Under the Iranian constitution, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has final authority over all internal and foreign policies (including the judicial system), control of all of the armed forces (internal and external), and control of all state media. Khamenei has served as Supreme Leader since 1989, when he replaced the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (remember him?), whose term commenced with the Revolution he orchestrated (1979), and lasted until his death in 1989. There are no popular elections or term limits for the Supreme Leader. Get the picture?
--Just as there is very little significance to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there is very little difference between the incumbent and the chief challenger. Mir Hossein Mousavi is not the Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel of Iran (at least not until this election).
So, who cares if an election for an office that has little meaning--between two Mullah-approved candidates who do not differ in any significant way--was stolen?
What is important?
3. The West is seeing the real Iran. George Bush and his 2002 "Axis of Evil" declaration seems much less kooky this summer. It will be exceedingly hard to refer to Iran as the "Islamic Republic" without irony ever again.
4. Even More Important: Right now, the election is NOT the thing. Right now, the Revolution is the thing. Regardless of whether the election was legitimate or fraudulent, the Islamic Republic of Iran is at a crossroads. Ironically, it does not take a majority to have a democratic revolution. You will recall the famous observation from John Adams in which he estimated that 1/3 of the colonists were for revolution, 1/3 were loyal to the Crown, and 1/3 were waiting to see which way the wind blew.
Revolutions are often accomplished with an inspired or infuriated coterie of believers, while the vast majority of citizens stand on the sidelines agape. There is almost certainly a city-country divide here (conservatives versus moderns). This may be much more of a "Tehranian" Revolt than a greater Iranian Revolution. However, that may not be so important. Something may be happening here that has very little to do with the late election or the will of the majority—but that does not mean that this massive action might not be the beginning of transformation.
What Should Obama Do?
5. To an extent, I am NOT completely disgusted with the President's response (or lack of response). In fact, I am glad he did not stake American prestige on an assertion that the election was rigged. As I say, I am not sure anybody knows that right now—or will ever know.
The silence on the unrest is more problematic. On one hand, the traditional saber-rattling and gnashing of teeth on the part of the United States in these situations is never determinative. We huff and puff--but we never blow anybody's house down. In a way, the President's decision NOT to employ that set piece of American foreign policy is somewhat refreshing. It is something of a relief to admit that we are merely bystanders in this internal Iranian drama.
On the other hand, it feels a bit un-American not to cheer on a people's revolution in the heart of an oppressive regime hostile to the United States. We love this kind of thing. We have rhetorically supported the fight for liberty in places all over the globe for more than two-hundred years. We should also note that we have myriad evidence that statements of support provide much appreciated comfort to the lonely dissident.
It really says something about the President that his heart does not override his rigorous New Left intellectual training. Once again, Barack Obama Americanism is almost the polar opposite of the flag-waving Reaganesque patriotism conservatives like me love so much.
2. Whether the election was stolen is beside the point for at least two reasons.
--The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a position of very limited authority. Under the Iranian constitution, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has final authority over all internal and foreign policies (including the judicial system), control of all of the armed forces (internal and external), and control of all state media. Khamenei has served as Supreme Leader since 1989, when he replaced the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (remember him?), whose term commenced with the Revolution he orchestrated (1979), and lasted until his death in 1989. There are no popular elections or term limits for the Supreme Leader. Get the picture?
--Just as there is very little significance to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there is very little difference between the incumbent and the chief challenger. Mir Hossein Mousavi is not the Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel of Iran (at least not until this election).
So, who cares if an election for an office that has little meaning--between two Mullah-approved candidates who do not differ in any significant way--was stolen?
What is important?
3. The West is seeing the real Iran. George Bush and his 2002 "Axis of Evil" declaration seems much less kooky this summer. It will be exceedingly hard to refer to Iran as the "Islamic Republic" without irony ever again.
4. Even More Important: Right now, the election is NOT the thing. Right now, the Revolution is the thing. Regardless of whether the election was legitimate or fraudulent, the Islamic Republic of Iran is at a crossroads. Ironically, it does not take a majority to have a democratic revolution. You will recall the famous observation from John Adams in which he estimated that 1/3 of the colonists were for revolution, 1/3 were loyal to the Crown, and 1/3 were waiting to see which way the wind blew.
Revolutions are often accomplished with an inspired or infuriated coterie of believers, while the vast majority of citizens stand on the sidelines agape. There is almost certainly a city-country divide here (conservatives versus moderns). This may be much more of a "Tehranian" Revolt than a greater Iranian Revolution. However, that may not be so important. Something may be happening here that has very little to do with the late election or the will of the majority—but that does not mean that this massive action might not be the beginning of transformation.
What Should Obama Do?
5. To an extent, I am NOT completely disgusted with the President's response (or lack of response). In fact, I am glad he did not stake American prestige on an assertion that the election was rigged. As I say, I am not sure anybody knows that right now—or will ever know.
The silence on the unrest is more problematic. On one hand, the traditional saber-rattling and gnashing of teeth on the part of the United States in these situations is never determinative. We huff and puff--but we never blow anybody's house down. In a way, the President's decision NOT to employ that set piece of American foreign policy is somewhat refreshing. It is something of a relief to admit that we are merely bystanders in this internal Iranian drama.
On the other hand, it feels a bit un-American not to cheer on a people's revolution in the heart of an oppressive regime hostile to the United States. We love this kind of thing. We have rhetorically supported the fight for liberty in places all over the globe for more than two-hundred years. We should also note that we have myriad evidence that statements of support provide much appreciated comfort to the lonely dissident.
It really says something about the President that his heart does not override his rigorous New Left intellectual training. Once again, Barack Obama Americanism is almost the polar opposite of the flag-waving Reaganesque patriotism conservatives like me love so much.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Recently my wife and I drove to Tulsa, Oklahoma, and toured the Gilcrease Museum. Built around the art collection of an Oklahoma oilman, the Gilcrease houses an astounding collection of American art. Well worth the time and expense of a trip to Tulsa.
I first became aware of this museum several years ago when I noticed that many of the paintings printed in the American history textbooks I used were housed there.
The collection includes
James Madison (1792) by Charles Wilson Peale
Black Hawk and His Son, Whirling Thunder (1833) by John Wesley Jarvis
Boone's First View of Kentucky (1849) by William T. Ranney
And many, many more, including sculptures.
The art collection includes over 10,000 paintings, drawings, prints and sculptures by 400 artists from colonial times to the present. Some of the important, non-western artists featured in the Gilcrease Collection include Thomas Eakins, Robert Feke, Charles Wilson Peale, Daniel Chester French, John Singleton Copley, James McNeil Whistler, John Singer Sargent, Winslow Homer, John James Audubon, William Merritt Chase, and N. C. Wyeth. Among the Western artists for which Gilcrease is renowned are the following:
Albert Bierstadt
William M. Cary
George Catlin
Woody Crumbo
William R. Leigh
Alfred Jacob Miller
Thomas Moran Frederic Remington (including 18 of his 22 bronzes)
Charles M. Russell
Olaf Seltzer
Joseph H. Sharp
Willard Stone
Charles Banks Wilson
I first became aware of this museum several years ago when I noticed that many of the paintings printed in the American history textbooks I used were housed there.
The collection includes
James Madison (1792) by Charles Wilson Peale
Black Hawk and His Son, Whirling Thunder (1833) by John Wesley Jarvis
Boone's First View of Kentucky (1849) by William T. Ranney
And many, many more, including sculptures.
The art collection includes over 10,000 paintings, drawings, prints and sculptures by 400 artists from colonial times to the present. Some of the important, non-western artists featured in the Gilcrease Collection include Thomas Eakins, Robert Feke, Charles Wilson Peale, Daniel Chester French, John Singleton Copley, James McNeil Whistler, John Singer Sargent, Winslow Homer, John James Audubon, William Merritt Chase, and N. C. Wyeth. Among the Western artists for which Gilcrease is renowned are the following:
Albert Bierstadt
William M. Cary
George Catlin
Woody Crumbo
William R. Leigh
Alfred Jacob Miller
Thomas Moran Frederic Remington (including 18 of his 22 bronzes)
Charles M. Russell
Olaf Seltzer
Joseph H. Sharp
Willard Stone
Charles Banks Wilson
