09/06: More Obama and Reagan
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Pat Buchanan today: "the Anti-Reagan."
"Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us — and everyone within earshot — of our own and our fathers’ sins.
"Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it."
If you are a mind, read the whole essay here. I am unconvinced by Pat's macro-psycho-historical explanation behind this difference in RR and BHO (it strikes me as a bit too facile)--but the two graphs above get at something that is worth investigating and defining. We all sense a different set of moral coordinates for this president. What does that mean for us?
Buchanan makes some serious assertions here that deserve consideration.
"Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us — and everyone within earshot — of our own and our fathers’ sins.
"Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it."
If you are a mind, read the whole essay here. I am unconvinced by Pat's macro-psycho-historical explanation behind this difference in RR and BHO (it strikes me as a bit too facile)--but the two graphs above get at something that is worth investigating and defining. We all sense a different set of moral coordinates for this president. What does that mean for us?
Buchanan makes some serious assertions here that deserve consideration.
Both Farmer and I have posted on Obama's Cairo speech.
As I read it, I was jarred by some of the historical assertions, but had other fish to fry and did not pursue all of them. For example, Obama credited Islamic civilization for printing and for the compass. My memory said that China usually is credited. Someone has now done the checking and Gateway Pundit has the story. The comments also contain much good information.
Bottom line: Obama's speechwriters need a better researcher. Many of these historical assertions are wrong, others are dubious. I wonder what CNN's reaction would have been had GWB given this speech?
As I read it, I was jarred by some of the historical assertions, but had other fish to fry and did not pursue all of them. For example, Obama credited Islamic civilization for printing and for the compass. My memory said that China usually is credited. Someone has now done the checking and Gateway Pundit has the story. The comments also contain much good information.
Bottom line: Obama's speechwriters need a better researcher. Many of these historical assertions are wrong, others are dubious. I wonder what CNN's reaction would have been had GWB given this speech?
07/06: Real Old Time Music
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Two hundred years ago Baptists were not organized into a national denomination. Instead, the Baptist movement, in two or three streams, had no national structures, local churches organizing into Associations. Baptists were, in general, not wealthy nor especially educated. They were not "high society." But, as the American nation grew and developed, so did Baptists. The majority organizing a national denomination (the Convention). But, the minority of Baptists remained outside this endeavor, for various reasons. They looked back to older, traditional ways. And among the treasures kept, was the real old-time music. Even when newer hymns were adopted, they were sung without instrumental accompanyment.
Much of this Baptist minority became the Primitive or Old School Baptist movement. Here is some of their music:
Audio, with a still picture of the Meeting House.
Last week I introduced you to Sacred Harp singing. Here is more, in a PB church.
This video sound a lot like the Primitive Baptist churches in which I grew up.
Another group of the Baptist minority is the Old Regular Baptists, found mostly in the Appalachians. Now they have preserved the real old time singing. Listening to them is like time traveling to a Baptist meeting in 1800. Some Primitive Baptist churches also sing like this, mostly in the mountains.
When Shall We Meet from the Smithsonian Folkways recording.
At a baptism, listen to the singing at the beginning of the video.
I Am a Poor Pilgrim of Sorrow another Smithsonian Folkways recording.
Much of this Baptist minority became the Primitive or Old School Baptist movement. Here is some of their music:
Audio, with a still picture of the Meeting House.
Last week I introduced you to Sacred Harp singing. Here is more, in a PB church.
This video sound a lot like the Primitive Baptist churches in which I grew up.
Another group of the Baptist minority is the Old Regular Baptists, found mostly in the Appalachians. Now they have preserved the real old time singing. Listening to them is like time traveling to a Baptist meeting in 1800. Some Primitive Baptist churches also sing like this, mostly in the mountains.
When Shall We Meet from the Smithsonian Folkways recording.
At a baptism, listen to the singing at the beginning of the video.
I Am a Poor Pilgrim of Sorrow another Smithsonian Folkways recording.
06/06: The Greatest of All Time(s)?
A Tale of Two Speeches
I watched President Obama this morning at Colleville-Sur-Mer (and I have read the text of his remarks once through). It was an adequate speech. The President appeared stately and properly reverent behind his teleprompters. He hit the requisite notes in praise of bravery and sacrifice.
Having said that, it is safe to predict that no one will ever place this address on a "Barack Obama's Greatest Hits" ipod collection. For me , the remarks were not especially resonant. He did not "hook" me--as he so often does when operating at full power.
But, then, of course, there is a gold standard by which all D-Day remembrances should and will be judged--and, through the magic of the internet, that shining moment in presidential oratory is everywhere you look this morning: Ronald Reagan's outstanding 40th Anniversary commemoration to "the Boys of Pointe du Hoc" and the fight for democracy.
If you have not seen it lately (watch it here via RCP and courtesy of the Reagan Library). Watch it. Seriously.
It is easy to forget the majesty of Reagan. It is easy to forget the dignity of the man. It is easy to forget that he did not work off a teleprompter. Rather, he carried the text of his speeches on 3X5 cards, which he would transport in the front pocket of his suit coat. It is easy to forget the passion with which he delivered a speech about the United States of America and the larger fight for human freedom.
Along with individual bravery and collective sacrifice from the democratic nations of the world, Ronald Reagan suggested strongly that the hand of Providence affected the outcome of the Longest Day. He unabashedly seemed to believe that God was on our side. Without apology or equivocation, he boldly asserted that the United States was on the side of the angels in 1944 and 1984.
It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
Barack Obama also emphasized individuals coming together to stand up to EVIL embodied in an "ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate, and exterminate...and perpetrate murder on a massive scale, fueled by a hatred of those who were deemed different and therefore inferior."
But he stopped short of drawing too many grand conclusions. The meaning of D-Day?
For you remind us that in the end, human destiny is not determined by forces beyond our control. You remind us that our future is not shaped by mere chance or circumstance. Our history has always been the sum total of the choices made and the actions taken by each individual man or woman. It has always been up to us.
Yes we can?
In the end, RR placed the great challenge of his time, the Cold War, in the context of a long and righteous struggle for freedom. BHO, on the other hand, alludes to but fails to identify the "hardships and struggles of our time," and he consciously avoids any macro value judgments about righteousness.
To put it mildly, these two leaders perceive their respective historical moments in fundamentally different ways.
I watched President Obama this morning at Colleville-Sur-Mer (and I have read the text of his remarks once through). It was an adequate speech. The President appeared stately and properly reverent behind his teleprompters. He hit the requisite notes in praise of bravery and sacrifice.
Having said that, it is safe to predict that no one will ever place this address on a "Barack Obama's Greatest Hits" ipod collection. For me , the remarks were not especially resonant. He did not "hook" me--as he so often does when operating at full power.
But, then, of course, there is a gold standard by which all D-Day remembrances should and will be judged--and, through the magic of the internet, that shining moment in presidential oratory is everywhere you look this morning: Ronald Reagan's outstanding 40th Anniversary commemoration to "the Boys of Pointe du Hoc" and the fight for democracy.
If you have not seen it lately (watch it here via RCP and courtesy of the Reagan Library). Watch it. Seriously.
It is easy to forget the majesty of Reagan. It is easy to forget the dignity of the man. It is easy to forget that he did not work off a teleprompter. Rather, he carried the text of his speeches on 3X5 cards, which he would transport in the front pocket of his suit coat. It is easy to forget the passion with which he delivered a speech about the United States of America and the larger fight for human freedom.
Along with individual bravery and collective sacrifice from the democratic nations of the world, Ronald Reagan suggested strongly that the hand of Providence affected the outcome of the Longest Day. He unabashedly seemed to believe that God was on our side. Without apology or equivocation, he boldly asserted that the United States was on the side of the angels in 1944 and 1984.
It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
Barack Obama also emphasized individuals coming together to stand up to EVIL embodied in an "ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate, and exterminate...and perpetrate murder on a massive scale, fueled by a hatred of those who were deemed different and therefore inferior."
But he stopped short of drawing too many grand conclusions. The meaning of D-Day?
For you remind us that in the end, human destiny is not determined by forces beyond our control. You remind us that our future is not shaped by mere chance or circumstance. Our history has always been the sum total of the choices made and the actions taken by each individual man or woman. It has always been up to us.
Yes we can?
In the end, RR placed the great challenge of his time, the Cold War, in the context of a long and righteous struggle for freedom. BHO, on the other hand, alludes to but fails to identify the "hardships and struggles of our time," and he consciously avoids any macro value judgments about righteousness.
To put it mildly, these two leaders perceive their respective historical moments in fundamentally different ways.
Although I hate that is has become so cliche, for a long time my watchword for the American future has been sustainability.
1. Of course, I advocate "Going Green." While "environmentalism" is much too often merely a nebulous catch-all talking point designed to score political advantage, we must move away from our plastic disposable society.
2. More fundamentally, I also advocate sustainability as an essential element of domestic economic policy. We can no longer promise what we cannot afford. We can no longer count on borrowing money on the strength of our prodigious economic history, while our economic future is increasingly at risk and enfeebled as a result of our profligate present. We can no longer rely on the illogical assumption that sustained deficit spending ensures perpetual prosperity. In essence, our government cannot be all things to all our citizens. To survive, our government must learn to say "no." As I have said before, we must understand that the Keynesian Interlude is coming to an end.
3. Perhaps most importantly, I advocate sustainability as a governing principle in terms of foreign relations. Idealism and pure humanitarianism regarding foreign affairs are luxuries we cannot afford in light of my second proposition. We must be much more circumspect in defining our vital interests. To put it bluntly, we must be much more frugal and selfish in wielding our military power. The era of Pax Americana is no longer tenable in the age we are about to enter. The argument over the intentions or benefits concerning the projection of American power is now moot. Rather, our new economic realities dictate a more humble and realistic approach to the world.
Ironically, I have a strong sense that the new post-America world order will be a tragedy for humanity in terms of security and quality of life. Notwithstanding, we stand at a crossroads in which our basic needs and vital interests must trump our evangelical impulse to ameliorate the human condition.
We are a long way from facing up to this inevitable radical change in our status. I firmly believe that we will not come to grips with these new facts of life until we are absolutely forced to. But I am increasingly convinced that they are out there waiting for us--like it or not.
1. Of course, I advocate "Going Green." While "environmentalism" is much too often merely a nebulous catch-all talking point designed to score political advantage, we must move away from our plastic disposable society.
2. More fundamentally, I also advocate sustainability as an essential element of domestic economic policy. We can no longer promise what we cannot afford. We can no longer count on borrowing money on the strength of our prodigious economic history, while our economic future is increasingly at risk and enfeebled as a result of our profligate present. We can no longer rely on the illogical assumption that sustained deficit spending ensures perpetual prosperity. In essence, our government cannot be all things to all our citizens. To survive, our government must learn to say "no." As I have said before, we must understand that the Keynesian Interlude is coming to an end.
3. Perhaps most importantly, I advocate sustainability as a governing principle in terms of foreign relations. Idealism and pure humanitarianism regarding foreign affairs are luxuries we cannot afford in light of my second proposition. We must be much more circumspect in defining our vital interests. To put it bluntly, we must be much more frugal and selfish in wielding our military power. The era of Pax Americana is no longer tenable in the age we are about to enter. The argument over the intentions or benefits concerning the projection of American power is now moot. Rather, our new economic realities dictate a more humble and realistic approach to the world.
Ironically, I have a strong sense that the new post-America world order will be a tragedy for humanity in terms of security and quality of life. Notwithstanding, we stand at a crossroads in which our basic needs and vital interests must trump our evangelical impulse to ameliorate the human condition.
We are a long way from facing up to this inevitable radical change in our status. I firmly believe that we will not come to grips with these new facts of life until we are absolutely forced to. But I am increasingly convinced that they are out there waiting for us--like it or not.
Here is the full text of Obama's Cairo speech. I want to look at a few falsehoods in this speech, and ask the question if perhaps they may be useful.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
"Mutual respect." Islam (meaning here the Q'uran and the sayings of Mohammad) does not teach mutual respect between Muslims and non-Muslims. Instead, Muslims are to make no friends from among those on the outside, and are to view those on the outside as being in the Realm of War, adversaries to be converted or conquered.
"progress" Islam, by its nature tends to be backward looking. The life of Mohammad, and the first Muslim society created during Mohammad's lifetime, are regarded as the exemplars of human life for all time. Historically, Islamic societies have not been at the forefront of modern science and technology.
"tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." No, Islam does not teach this. Muslims and Muslim society is held to be superior. Christians and Jews are "People of the Book," but within Islamic society are to have a circumscribed existence as dhimmis--second-class citizens with fewer privileges and a special tax. Others, pagans or Hindus, have roles as either converts or slaves (or dead). Although during Islamic rule in India Hindus were given a dhimmi status. Also, Islam, from the Q'uran forward, stresses male-superiority and female inferiority.
Are these useful falsehoods? Maybe. But only to Muslim audiences, if and only if, they can be persuasive to Muslims who wish to remake their religion. For Westeners these falsehoods are dangerous since they confuse our view of the historical reality.
"As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."
"The light of learning" was taken over from the Greeks as Islamic forces conquered the Greek and Christian Byzantine Empire, not generated by Muslims. We also should give credit to the refugee scholars from conquered areas who migrated to the West, especially after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
"Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." No it has not. See above on the relation taught, and practiced between Muslims and non-Muslims. Regarding race, Muslim societies normally have looked to black Africa for their slaves. Arabs today tend to look down upon blacks.
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library."
"Treaty of Tripoli in 1796" was negotiated after the siezures of American ships in the Mediterranean by the Barbary States. The treaty was broken by these states which led to the armed conflict between the U.S. and these piratical regimes. When John Adams wrote, the U.S. had no hostile designes on any powers in the Old World that would leave us alone.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
See above. Indonesia in the days Obama was there was a different sort of place. The Islam of Indonesia was fairly tolerant not because it was true to its Islamic roots, but because it ignored them. Syncretism and coexistence are a departure from traditional Islam, and the Islamic revival today in Indonesia in returning to the roots of Islam is resulting in far less syncretism and tolerance.
I second Farmer in noting that there is much in this speech that is very good. But, I also believe that truth is the only way forward.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
"Mutual respect." Islam (meaning here the Q'uran and the sayings of Mohammad) does not teach mutual respect between Muslims and non-Muslims. Instead, Muslims are to make no friends from among those on the outside, and are to view those on the outside as being in the Realm of War, adversaries to be converted or conquered.
"progress" Islam, by its nature tends to be backward looking. The life of Mohammad, and the first Muslim society created during Mohammad's lifetime, are regarded as the exemplars of human life for all time. Historically, Islamic societies have not been at the forefront of modern science and technology.
"tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." No, Islam does not teach this. Muslims and Muslim society is held to be superior. Christians and Jews are "People of the Book," but within Islamic society are to have a circumscribed existence as dhimmis--second-class citizens with fewer privileges and a special tax. Others, pagans or Hindus, have roles as either converts or slaves (or dead). Although during Islamic rule in India Hindus were given a dhimmi status. Also, Islam, from the Q'uran forward, stresses male-superiority and female inferiority.
Are these useful falsehoods? Maybe. But only to Muslim audiences, if and only if, they can be persuasive to Muslims who wish to remake their religion. For Westeners these falsehoods are dangerous since they confuse our view of the historical reality.
"As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."
"The light of learning" was taken over from the Greeks as Islamic forces conquered the Greek and Christian Byzantine Empire, not generated by Muslims. We also should give credit to the refugee scholars from conquered areas who migrated to the West, especially after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
"Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." No it has not. See above on the relation taught, and practiced between Muslims and non-Muslims. Regarding race, Muslim societies normally have looked to black Africa for their slaves. Arabs today tend to look down upon blacks.
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library."
"Treaty of Tripoli in 1796" was negotiated after the siezures of American ships in the Mediterranean by the Barbary States. The treaty was broken by these states which led to the armed conflict between the U.S. and these piratical regimes. When John Adams wrote, the U.S. had no hostile designes on any powers in the Old World that would leave us alone.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
See above. Indonesia in the days Obama was there was a different sort of place. The Islam of Indonesia was fairly tolerant not because it was true to its Islamic roots, but because it ignored them. Syncretism and coexistence are a departure from traditional Islam, and the Islamic revival today in Indonesia in returning to the roots of Islam is resulting in far less syncretism and tolerance.
I second Farmer in noting that there is much in this speech that is very good. But, I also believe that truth is the only way forward.
Off the top of my head:
When Texas A&M plays my beloved Baylor Bears, I am completely comfortable demonstrating my frothing hatred for the dreadful Aggies. When A&M plays Missouri or Nebraska, I almost always root for the Aggies. When A&M plays Ohio State, I love the Aggies.
When a sitting President of the United States travels to a foreign land and delivers a speech on behalf of US, regardless of party affiliation, I am totally "USA! USA! USA!" I just can't help myself.
AND THIS PRESIDENT CAN DELIVER A SPEECH!!! Hot damn, son, you really did sell your soul to the Devil.
Of course, not everyone agrees. When GMA asked conservative commentator Sean Hannity for his immediate reaction this morning following the speech, Hannity recited the same criticism he delivered on his radio show yesterday afternoon in advance of the speech (virtually word for word). Suffice it say that the President's address did not change Hannity's mind.
Some thoughts:
1. I have said similar things before, but thus far this president is absolutely stellar at representing the United States of America. He is suave and articulate. He exudes confidence and style. He fully comprehends the potent symbolism of a President of the United States traveling abroad. On a purely superficial level, he is Reagan-like in his capacity to command the world stage.
2. The content of this speech was almost identical to the policies of the last administration. Nothing new here. Aside from the perhaps gratuitous admission of "torture," followed by a quasi justification-slash-apology for the practice, George Bush or Condi Rice could have given this speech.
An Aside: having said that, I have no doubt that Barack Obama forever will be known in popular history as the president who first suggested a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. So it goes.
3. It is good for American presidents to go through the motions of articulating a rational case for peace and goodwill in front of audiences traditionally hostile to those public virtues. Based on past performance, it seems unlikely that his eloquence will transform the hearts and minds of the Middle East. Time will tell. But anything is possible. Stranger things have happened. There are other forces at work (some of them set in motion by the previous administration) that may combine to form a "complicated web of contingency" that moves history.
4. Good Cop; Bad Cop. With a few exceptions, American foreign policy since World War II has remained essentially consistent over time regardless of presidential elections. In terms of goals and interests, very little has changed since January 20th. However, this president has the advantage of being a very popular and charismatic president following a president who lacked those assets. We will have to wait and see how President Obama makes use of these slightly improved circumstances.
One thing worth noting: his adoring audience in Cairo went wild when he told them what they wanted to hear (America and Israel were not without faults)--but there was a deafening silence in the auditorium when he explained how they could be the "change they sought." This president has his work cut out for him. But I wish him well.
BOTTOM LINE: big political triumph for the President (at least in the short term).
When Texas A&M plays my beloved Baylor Bears, I am completely comfortable demonstrating my frothing hatred for the dreadful Aggies. When A&M plays Missouri or Nebraska, I almost always root for the Aggies. When A&M plays Ohio State, I love the Aggies.
When a sitting President of the United States travels to a foreign land and delivers a speech on behalf of US, regardless of party affiliation, I am totally "USA! USA! USA!" I just can't help myself.
AND THIS PRESIDENT CAN DELIVER A SPEECH!!! Hot damn, son, you really did sell your soul to the Devil.
Of course, not everyone agrees. When GMA asked conservative commentator Sean Hannity for his immediate reaction this morning following the speech, Hannity recited the same criticism he delivered on his radio show yesterday afternoon in advance of the speech (virtually word for word). Suffice it say that the President's address did not change Hannity's mind.
Some thoughts:
1. I have said similar things before, but thus far this president is absolutely stellar at representing the United States of America. He is suave and articulate. He exudes confidence and style. He fully comprehends the potent symbolism of a President of the United States traveling abroad. On a purely superficial level, he is Reagan-like in his capacity to command the world stage.
2. The content of this speech was almost identical to the policies of the last administration. Nothing new here. Aside from the perhaps gratuitous admission of "torture," followed by a quasi justification-slash-apology for the practice, George Bush or Condi Rice could have given this speech.
An Aside: having said that, I have no doubt that Barack Obama forever will be known in popular history as the president who first suggested a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. So it goes.
3. It is good for American presidents to go through the motions of articulating a rational case for peace and goodwill in front of audiences traditionally hostile to those public virtues. Based on past performance, it seems unlikely that his eloquence will transform the hearts and minds of the Middle East. Time will tell. But anything is possible. Stranger things have happened. There are other forces at work (some of them set in motion by the previous administration) that may combine to form a "complicated web of contingency" that moves history.
4. Good Cop; Bad Cop. With a few exceptions, American foreign policy since World War II has remained essentially consistent over time regardless of presidential elections. In terms of goals and interests, very little has changed since January 20th. However, this president has the advantage of being a very popular and charismatic president following a president who lacked those assets. We will have to wait and see how President Obama makes use of these slightly improved circumstances.
One thing worth noting: his adoring audience in Cairo went wild when he told them what they wanted to hear (America and Israel were not without faults)--but there was a deafening silence in the auditorium when he explained how they could be the "change they sought." This president has his work cut out for him. But I wish him well.
BOTTOM LINE: big political triumph for the President (at least in the short term).
01/06: Is the Honeymoon Over?
Robert Samuelson thinks not:
The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
Read the whole thing here (via RCP). For what it's worth, Samuelson is exactly right. Now what?
In all seriousness, there is literally nothing WE can do to change this reality. In fact, our initial petulant reaction to our loss of power (and credibility) has exacerbated our decline and our irrelevance.
My advice: hunker down and ride out the storm. We need to be introspective--not obnoxious. We need to be thoughtful--not provocative. We need to be getting our conservative house in order. Distractions like Sonia Sotomayor are small potatoes. The coming existential crisis will require a healthy conservatism. The survival of our nation as we know it probably depends on our preparations during this nadir.
It is time to get serious and start thinking long term.
Let us begin...
The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
Read the whole thing here (via RCP). For what it's worth, Samuelson is exactly right. Now what?
In all seriousness, there is literally nothing WE can do to change this reality. In fact, our initial petulant reaction to our loss of power (and credibility) has exacerbated our decline and our irrelevance.
My advice: hunker down and ride out the storm. We need to be introspective--not obnoxious. We need to be thoughtful--not provocative. We need to be getting our conservative house in order. Distractions like Sonia Sotomayor are small potatoes. The coming existential crisis will require a healthy conservatism. The survival of our nation as we know it probably depends on our preparations during this nadir.
It is time to get serious and start thinking long term.
Let us begin...
Category: American Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
The standard story on the Roman Catholic Priest Abuser scandal is that the priests were committing child abuse. But I wonder if that is the correct template for understanding the story.
Former Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who resigned under pressure from Milwaukee, has a memoir coming out shortly. In the memoir he will reveal, reportedly, that he is homosexual. His involvement in the Milwaukee misdeeds was not limited to covering up for fellow priests.
Weakland, 82, resigned as archbishop in 2002 after admitting the archdiocese secretly paid $450,000 to a man who accused him of sexual abuse decades earlier. Weakland admitted an "inappropriate relationship" but denied abuse.
Story here.
Most of the victims of the abuse scandal were not "children" in the sense of pre-adolescent boys. About 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and about 27% were 15 - 17. Statistics.
These statistics have led some to conclude that rather than pedophilia, the scandal is really more about homosexuality in the clergy.
To begin with, it took a non-Catholic to point out that the term "pedophile priest" is largely a misnomer when applied to all cases of sexual impropriety. Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, wrote Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis in 1996. Yes, some priests have engaged in pedophilia — exploitation of children below the age of puberty — but their number is very small. By and large, the scandals have involved sexual relations between priests and adolescents — mostly boys — which suggests that homosexuality is involved in most cases.
Simply paranoia?
Among the conclusions of an academic study done about 10 years ago on attitudes toward marriage, celibacy, and homosexuality among Roman Catholic priests was this:
Our conclusion, based on these data and on our focus groups, is that homosexual subcultures increased in visibility, and probably also in numbers, in recent decades.
A search of the web reveals lots of conversation on this topic. I assume my ignorance comes from not being Roman Catholic.
All of this makes the Boy Scout policy seem very reasonable.
Former Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who resigned under pressure from Milwaukee, has a memoir coming out shortly. In the memoir he will reveal, reportedly, that he is homosexual. His involvement in the Milwaukee misdeeds was not limited to covering up for fellow priests.
Weakland, 82, resigned as archbishop in 2002 after admitting the archdiocese secretly paid $450,000 to a man who accused him of sexual abuse decades earlier. Weakland admitted an "inappropriate relationship" but denied abuse.
Story here.
Most of the victims of the abuse scandal were not "children" in the sense of pre-adolescent boys. About 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and about 27% were 15 - 17. Statistics.
These statistics have led some to conclude that rather than pedophilia, the scandal is really more about homosexuality in the clergy.
To begin with, it took a non-Catholic to point out that the term "pedophile priest" is largely a misnomer when applied to all cases of sexual impropriety. Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, wrote Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis in 1996. Yes, some priests have engaged in pedophilia — exploitation of children below the age of puberty — but their number is very small. By and large, the scandals have involved sexual relations between priests and adolescents — mostly boys — which suggests that homosexuality is involved in most cases.
Simply paranoia?
Among the conclusions of an academic study done about 10 years ago on attitudes toward marriage, celibacy, and homosexuality among Roman Catholic priests was this:
Our conclusion, based on these data and on our focus groups, is that homosexual subcultures increased in visibility, and probably also in numbers, in recent decades.
A search of the web reveals lots of conversation on this topic. I assume my ignorance comes from not being Roman Catholic.
All of this makes the Boy Scout policy seem very reasonable.
01/06: Sudden Jihad Syndrome?
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gateway Pundit has the story on the Muslim convert who gunned down two "hometown" recruiters in Arkansas.
My guess is that he, like the four recently convicted in the synagogue bombing plot, is a convert to Islam who is taking his duties seriously of extending the Realm of Submission by any means possible, just like the Q'uran and Muhammad teach.
My guess is that he, like the four recently convicted in the synagogue bombing plot, is a convert to Islam who is taking his duties seriously of extending the Realm of Submission by any means possible, just like the Q'uran and Muhammad teach.
