22/10: The Next Big Thing
As the election nears, I sense that we are in a real lull of activity. I am not sure if we are waiting for the next trump card or, perhaps, have all the aces and spades already been played? Are all the money cards now on the table? If so, the last couple of tricks may fall to mid-level hearts and clubs.
Or, switching metaphors, are the two parties like two heavyweight fighters who have punched themselves out in the late-middle rounds and, unable to knock the other out, who intend to stagger around for the remainder of the fight, leaning on one another until the final bell comes? Unfortunately, one of these bloated, undeserving contestants will win a decision.
I am increasingly convinced that there is a great pall descending over the American electorate. Faced with the final reality that the majority must go, and well aware that the minority is ill-equipped to govern, voters are fast becoming disheartened and pessimistic about their future.
What is the next big thing?
Or, switching metaphors, are the two parties like two heavyweight fighters who have punched themselves out in the late-middle rounds and, unable to knock the other out, who intend to stagger around for the remainder of the fight, leaning on one another until the final bell comes? Unfortunately, one of these bloated, undeserving contestants will win a decision.
I am increasingly convinced that there is a great pall descending over the American electorate. Faced with the final reality that the majority must go, and well aware that the minority is ill-equipped to govern, voters are fast becoming disheartened and pessimistic about their future.
What is the next big thing?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
C-SPAN (Brian-Lamb Friday) spent some time this morning noting that this week, by order of the Republican-controlled Congress, is "National Character Counts Week." Brian featured a story from yesterday in the Washington Post from Dana Milbank, "During National Character Counts Week, Bush Stumps for Philanderer," which refers to President Bush's campaign efforts on behalf of embattled Pennsylvania Representative, Robert Sherwood.
Sherwood, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, etc. For all of us who like to think of the Republican Party as the moral option, these are troubling times.
Although GOP leadership assures us that there is a logical explanation to all this, I am reminded of a passage from one of my favorite novels, Lonesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry.
The setting:
Upon apprehending their erstwhile friend and colleague, Jake Spoon, who has fallen in with a band of bad men and reluctantly participated in a crime spree that included murder and horse theft, our heroes, Woodrow Call and Augustus McCrae, former captains in the Texas Rangers, proceed to summary justice for the crew.
Jake pleads his case:
"I ain't done nothing. I just fell in with these boys to get through the Territory. I was aiming to leave them first chance I got."
"You should have made a chance a little sooner, Jake," Augustus said. "A man that will go along with six killings is making his escape a little slow."
And later:
"Ride with an outlaw, die with him," he [Augustus] added. "I admit it is a harsh code. But you rode on the other side long enough to know how it works. I'm sorry you crossed the line, Jake."
Maybe like Jake, the GOP leaders lost track of where the line was; they were "just trying to get to Kansas without getting scalped." Nevertheless, it is time for a change.
Sherwood, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, etc. For all of us who like to think of the Republican Party as the moral option, these are troubling times.
Although GOP leadership assures us that there is a logical explanation to all this, I am reminded of a passage from one of my favorite novels, Lonesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry.
The setting:
Upon apprehending their erstwhile friend and colleague, Jake Spoon, who has fallen in with a band of bad men and reluctantly participated in a crime spree that included murder and horse theft, our heroes, Woodrow Call and Augustus McCrae, former captains in the Texas Rangers, proceed to summary justice for the crew.
Jake pleads his case:
"I ain't done nothing. I just fell in with these boys to get through the Territory. I was aiming to leave them first chance I got."
"You should have made a chance a little sooner, Jake," Augustus said. "A man that will go along with six killings is making his escape a little slow."
And later:
"Ride with an outlaw, die with him," he [Augustus] added. "I admit it is a harsh code. But you rode on the other side long enough to know how it works. I'm sorry you crossed the line, Jake."
Maybe like Jake, the GOP leaders lost track of where the line was; they were "just trying to get to Kansas without getting scalped." Nevertheless, it is time for a change.
19/10: My Favorite Baseball Movie
Way back in May, when the grass was green and every club had a chance to win the pennant, the Okie Gardener offered an excellent post on his relationship with the game of baseball; he improved it and re-released it recently: "The End of Another Regular Season." Back in the spring, the Gardener challenged me to name and defend my favorite baseball movie. I promised to step to the plate before the weather grew cold in Central Texas. It was 90 degrees yesterday, but a cold front moved in last night, and the boys of summer have given way to the Fall Classic. It is now or never.
Generally, I enjoy most movies about baseball, even bad ones; The Babe Ruth Story (1948) with William Bendix and Major League (1989) are two of my favorites in the latter category.
But there are a host of classic well-made baseball movies, so let's concentrate on the great ones.
Some of my favorites (in alphabetical order):
Generally, I enjoy most movies about baseball, even bad ones; The Babe Ruth Story (1948) with William Bendix and Major League (1989) are two of my favorites in the latter category.
But there are a host of classic well-made baseball movies, so let's concentrate on the great ones.
Some of my favorites (in alphabetical order):
My wife and I have three grown children. As they were growing up, we decided that they would participate in certain activities. For example, a mandatory few years of piano lessons and summer league baseball, swimming lessons until they were safe in the water, etc. We did not overschedule our children (or at least tried not to), but wanted them to have some breadth of experience.
One of the things we required was participation in Cub Scouts and Brownie Scouts (we have a daughter and two sons). It was then up to each child whether to continue in Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. We wanted them to do this for many reasons including: (1) being part of a group with some members outside our church [I was and am a pastor as well as teacher], (2) learning a variety of skills and having a variety of experiences resulting in greater self-confidence, (3) benefiting from the care and guidence of adults other than their parents, (4) being part of an organization that promotes traditional values. My wife and I are happy with this choice for our children. I also learned and grew serving in various capacities including Cub Scout Den Leader.
But, as most of you know, Scouting has been under attack for several years now. Jay Nordlinger in today's National Review has these thoughts.
It may be too much to speak of a war on the Boy Scouts, but they are certainly being . . . hampered. A couple of items: In Berkeley, Calif., “a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.” (I’m quoting from a news story.) Okay, that’s Berkeley — Berserkley, whatever.
In Connecticut, “officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations from state employees through a payroll deduction plan.”
Okay, that’s Connecticut, land of nutmeg and nutters.
And in Philadelphia? “The city is threatening to evict a Boy Scout council from the group’s publicly owned headquarters or make the group pay rent unless it changes its policy on gays.”
Just a little more quoting: “On a separate matter, federal judges in two other court cases that are being appealed have ruled that government aid to [the Scouts] is unconstitutional because the [organization] requires members to swear an oath of duty to God.”
Etc.
No, it’s too much to speak of a war on the Scouts. But should I say “too much” or “too early”? Will there come a day when the Scouts will be some kind of underground organization?
These are weird times, my friends.
One of the things we required was participation in Cub Scouts and Brownie Scouts (we have a daughter and two sons). It was then up to each child whether to continue in Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. We wanted them to do this for many reasons including: (1) being part of a group with some members outside our church [I was and am a pastor as well as teacher], (2) learning a variety of skills and having a variety of experiences resulting in greater self-confidence, (3) benefiting from the care and guidence of adults other than their parents, (4) being part of an organization that promotes traditional values. My wife and I are happy with this choice for our children. I also learned and grew serving in various capacities including Cub Scout Den Leader.
But, as most of you know, Scouting has been under attack for several years now. Jay Nordlinger in today's National Review has these thoughts.
It may be too much to speak of a war on the Boy Scouts, but they are certainly being . . . hampered. A couple of items: In Berkeley, Calif., “a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.” (I’m quoting from a news story.) Okay, that’s Berkeley — Berserkley, whatever.
In Connecticut, “officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations from state employees through a payroll deduction plan.”
Okay, that’s Connecticut, land of nutmeg and nutters.
And in Philadelphia? “The city is threatening to evict a Boy Scout council from the group’s publicly owned headquarters or make the group pay rent unless it changes its policy on gays.”
Just a little more quoting: “On a separate matter, federal judges in two other court cases that are being appealed have ruled that government aid to [the Scouts] is unconstitutional because the [organization] requires members to swear an oath of duty to God.”
Etc.
No, it’s too much to speak of a war on the Scouts. But should I say “too much” or “too early”? Will there come a day when the Scouts will be some kind of underground organization?
These are weird times, my friends.
18/10: Check out these essays
I read Jewish World Review daily and recomend it to others. Today they outdid themselves with some terrific essays. Check them out.
Everyday sweetness in America By Garrison Keillor
What ever happened to honor? By Paul Greenberg
Why the free market is king By Jonathan V. Last
Op-eds now more central in war than bullets By Daniel Pipes
Everyday sweetness in America By Garrison Keillor
What ever happened to honor? By Paul Greenberg
Why the free market is king By Jonathan V. Last
Op-eds now more central in war than bullets By Daniel Pipes
18/10: Darfur
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
More evidence that the government of Sudan is behind the genocide in Darfur. From BBC via the Khaleej Times.
LONDON - The Sudanese government is supporting the feared Janjaweed militia, which the United States accuses of genocide against non-Arab ethnic groups in Darfur, the BBC reported on Tuesday.
Citing an interview with a man identified only as ‘Ali’, a former member of the militia who admitted to killing innocent villagers in Darfur, the BBC said that Sudanese soldiers trained Janjaweed militiamen, and that the country’s air force bombed a village before the militia went in to kill villagers.
‘Ali’ served in the militia for two years, and is currently seeking asylum in Britain. The BBC consulted other Darfuri exiles in Britain and presented the interview to a psychologist who studied his interview, all of whom believed him.
‘The people who trained us came from the north, from the government. They gave us orders, and they say that after we are trained, they will give us guns and ammunition. We will be split into two groups -- one on horses, one on camels,’ the man told the broadcaster’s evening current affairs programme.
Asked how he knew the men training him were from the government, ‘Ali’ said: ‘They were wearing the uniforms of the military.’
When asked to name the members of the government who were ordering his forces, the man said that one ‘very well known and regular visitor’ was Sudan’s interior minister -- Abdul Rahim Hussein.
Article here. Hat tip Jihadwatch. My earlier post.
Thoughts below.
LONDON - The Sudanese government is supporting the feared Janjaweed militia, which the United States accuses of genocide against non-Arab ethnic groups in Darfur, the BBC reported on Tuesday.
Citing an interview with a man identified only as ‘Ali’, a former member of the militia who admitted to killing innocent villagers in Darfur, the BBC said that Sudanese soldiers trained Janjaweed militiamen, and that the country’s air force bombed a village before the militia went in to kill villagers.
‘Ali’ served in the militia for two years, and is currently seeking asylum in Britain. The BBC consulted other Darfuri exiles in Britain and presented the interview to a psychologist who studied his interview, all of whom believed him.
‘The people who trained us came from the north, from the government. They gave us orders, and they say that after we are trained, they will give us guns and ammunition. We will be split into two groups -- one on horses, one on camels,’ the man told the broadcaster’s evening current affairs programme.
Asked how he knew the men training him were from the government, ‘Ali’ said: ‘They were wearing the uniforms of the military.’
When asked to name the members of the government who were ordering his forces, the man said that one ‘very well known and regular visitor’ was Sudan’s interior minister -- Abdul Rahim Hussein.
Article here. Hat tip Jihadwatch. My earlier post.
Thoughts below.
From an OpEd in the New York Times.
FOR the past several months, I’ve been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?”
A “gotcha” question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don’t think it’s out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I’m not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who’s on what side today, and what does each want?
After all, wouldn’t British counterterrorism officials responsible for Northern Ireland know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? In a remotely similar but far more lethal vein, the 1,400-year Sunni-Shiite rivalry is playing out in the streets of Baghdad, raising the specter of a breakup of Iraq into antagonistic states, one backed by Shiite Iran and the other by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states.
Read entire OpEd. Hat tip LGF.
FOR the past several months, I’ve been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?”
A “gotcha” question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don’t think it’s out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I’m not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who’s on what side today, and what does each want?
After all, wouldn’t British counterterrorism officials responsible for Northern Ireland know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? In a remotely similar but far more lethal vein, the 1,400-year Sunni-Shiite rivalry is playing out in the streets of Baghdad, raising the specter of a breakup of Iraq into antagonistic states, one backed by Shiite Iran and the other by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states.
Read entire OpEd. Hat tip LGF.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
My home state of Missouri is in the midst of a campaign to prevent the state legislature from curtailing stem cell research. Proponents of this research are pushing an amendment to the state constitution granting a sort of "right" to do stem-cell research, within Federal guidelines. Article here, portions below.
Proponents of Missouri constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research have broken every record on political spending for statewide races, with one billionaire couple bankrolling nearly all of the $28.7 million campaign.
. . .
The Nov. 7 vote asks voters to amend the Missouri constitution to protect all forms of stem cell research that are legal under federal law. The measure would limit the Legislature's ability to regulate controversial forms of embryonic stem cell research.
My thoughts below.
Proponents of Missouri constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research have broken every record on political spending for statewide races, with one billionaire couple bankrolling nearly all of the $28.7 million campaign.
. . .
The Nov. 7 vote asks voters to amend the Missouri constitution to protect all forms of stem cell research that are legal under federal law. The measure would limit the Legislature's ability to regulate controversial forms of embryonic stem cell research.
My thoughts below.
17/10: What is Our National Myth?
In Plato's Republic the participants discuss the creation of a just city (society). One of the first suggestions is that the stories told to children are powerful, shaping souls/minds. It is agreed that not any set of stories will do if the members of a just society are to be shaped properly. For example, the old myths of the gods inculcate too many bad ideas and attitudes, therefore new stories must be created to shape souls/minds to virtue. These new stories, "fables," may be literally untrue, but must convey truth about ultimate reality (God).
Plato--and the human mind does not get much better--recognized that we are shaped by the stories we tell one another. These stories may shape us badly (injustice, lack of virtue) or well (just, virtuous). For a just and virtuous society to be formed, attention must be given to the shared stories, the shared mythology, of the society.
I am using the word "myth" in this post to mean "significant story," that is, a story that is intended to signify truth: a story intended to locate us within the universe and within society. "Myth" in this sense is the story that tells us who we are as individuals and as a society. For example, my primary source of insight into the purpose of Jesus' parables is from Amos Wilder (Thornton's brother) in his book Jesus' Parables and the War of Myths. In the parables Jesus is telling his followers who they are, and what the world is really like. He is giving them stories with signifying power.
In his recent and excellent post Immigration and Acculturation, Farmer concluded by writing (cont. below)
Plato--and the human mind does not get much better--recognized that we are shaped by the stories we tell one another. These stories may shape us badly (injustice, lack of virtue) or well (just, virtuous). For a just and virtuous society to be formed, attention must be given to the shared stories, the shared mythology, of the society.
I am using the word "myth" in this post to mean "significant story," that is, a story that is intended to signify truth: a story intended to locate us within the universe and within society. "Myth" in this sense is the story that tells us who we are as individuals and as a society. For example, my primary source of insight into the purpose of Jesus' parables is from Amos Wilder (Thornton's brother) in his book Jesus' Parables and the War of Myths. In the parables Jesus is telling his followers who they are, and what the world is really like. He is giving them stories with signifying power.
In his recent and excellent post Immigration and Acculturation, Farmer concluded by writing (cont. below)
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Good op-ed piece in the USA Today:
From "Left, Right and Religion: A Double Standard," by Patrick Hynes and Jeremy Lott:
"[T}he creation of the religious right was largely a function of the courts and politicians pushing the boundaries the other way. Evangelicals were moved to civic activism because the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of private Christian schools; because the U.S. Supreme Court removed abortion from the political process; because mentions of the Almighty began to be scrubbed from valedictory addresses for fear that someone, somewhere might take offense. Today, the term "goddamn" is treated as protected speech, but remove the "damn" and watch the lawsuits roll in.
"So evangelicals did the only responsible thing they could in a democracy. They organized and reached out. They found allies in churchgoing Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews and even some agnostics who believed that religion plays a vital role in holding society together. In this they were not so different from the civil rights leaders of the past, whose rallying cry was the God-given dignity of every American. The new coalition grew over time to the point that the religious right (or "values voters," if you prefer) became the single largest voting bloc in American politics."
Hynes and Lott have all this essentially correct. The headline is a bit misleading, as the rest of the piece offers a report on the rise of the religious left, which the authors welcome as a good thing.
The article in full.
For much more on Religion and Public Policy, I recommend the Okie Gardener's extended series contained here (scroll down).
From "Left, Right and Religion: A Double Standard," by Patrick Hynes and Jeremy Lott:
"[T}he creation of the religious right was largely a function of the courts and politicians pushing the boundaries the other way. Evangelicals were moved to civic activism because the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of private Christian schools; because the U.S. Supreme Court removed abortion from the political process; because mentions of the Almighty began to be scrubbed from valedictory addresses for fear that someone, somewhere might take offense. Today, the term "goddamn" is treated as protected speech, but remove the "damn" and watch the lawsuits roll in.
"So evangelicals did the only responsible thing they could in a democracy. They organized and reached out. They found allies in churchgoing Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews and even some agnostics who believed that religion plays a vital role in holding society together. In this they were not so different from the civil rights leaders of the past, whose rallying cry was the God-given dignity of every American. The new coalition grew over time to the point that the religious right (or "values voters," if you prefer) became the single largest voting bloc in American politics."
Hynes and Lott have all this essentially correct. The headline is a bit misleading, as the rest of the piece offers a report on the rise of the religious left, which the authors welcome as a good thing.
The article in full.
For much more on Religion and Public Policy, I recommend the Okie Gardener's extended series contained here (scroll down).
