Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The sad decline of the once proud New York Times continues. From the corrections:
An article on Sunday about New Yorkers who are being discussed as possible presidential candidates in 2008 misidentified the last New Yorker to be nominated for a major party’s national ticket. It was Jack Kemp, a former congressman from the Buffalo area who was the Republican vice presidential candidate in 1996 — not Geraldine Ferraro, a former Democratic congresswoman from Queens, who was the vice presidential candidate in 1984. (Go to Article)
To read all the corrections; Here Hat tip Powerline.
I have trouble believing that a major paper that takes politics seriously could make an error such as this. Even if the reporter was 28 years old and received a bad education (no matter the prestige of the degree), surely the reporter could have taken a few minutes research time. And, do the editors only proofread? The current ownership of the NYT has been a disaster for the "Paper of Record."
An article on Sunday about New Yorkers who are being discussed as possible presidential candidates in 2008 misidentified the last New Yorker to be nominated for a major party’s national ticket. It was Jack Kemp, a former congressman from the Buffalo area who was the Republican vice presidential candidate in 1996 — not Geraldine Ferraro, a former Democratic congresswoman from Queens, who was the vice presidential candidate in 1984. (Go to Article)
To read all the corrections; Here Hat tip Powerline.
I have trouble believing that a major paper that takes politics seriously could make an error such as this. Even if the reporter was 28 years old and received a bad education (no matter the prestige of the degree), surely the reporter could have taken a few minutes research time. And, do the editors only proofread? The current ownership of the NYT has been a disaster for the "Paper of Record."
31/08: World War I (or WW IV)
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Islamist bombing campaign in Thailand. Here. We as Westerners are too self-centered if we think that Islam is attacking only the West: ask India or Thailand. I am sure that it is the Thai Middle-Eastern policy provoking these killings.
Remember, "Peace" as in "Religion of Peace" means submission to Allah; in their view the world will be at peace when all have submitted, whether they want to or not.
Remember, "Peace" as in "Religion of Peace" means submission to Allah; in their view the world will be at peace when all have submitted, whether they want to or not.
30/08: A Kinder and Gentler World?
Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld was in the news again on Wednesday. From the Washington Post: "Rumsfeld Assails Critics of War Policy;" from the DOD (Armed Forces Press Coverage): "Rumsfeld: Truth Powerful Weapon in War on Terror." Read the TRANSCRIPT (here) of his speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City, UT.
Rumsfeld is always worth reading; he is a disciplined and logical rhetorician, who regularly gives voice to what the administration is thinking.
Comparing our current political division over the "War on Terror" to the "cynicism and moral confusion" and "appeasement" that encouraged the rise of fascism and Nazism during the 1930s, Rumsfeld called on Americans to learn the lessons of history and "face the central questions of our time:
With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world’s trouble?"
An aside: I like Rummy and tend to support him. But I fault him for the myriad poor choices and miscalculations in our current war in Iraq. He is the person in penultimate authority. From a corporate perspective, If we viewed DOD as a division in the larger Executive, based on overall performance and net results, Rumsfeld would have lost his job years ago. Having said that, Rumsfeld is a courageous and serious person, who embodies the best of the public service tradition.
"Fascism" and "Appeasement." Apparently, the White House is fully committed to employing the ghosts of the 1930s. I have a few questions about the analogy, as I do all historical analogies (some earlier indirect skepticism on my part here).
Notwithstanding, I welcome any serious conversation regarding the threat we face, and I appreciate another effort to take this debate to the public. However, extended discussions of 1938, as well as 1945, provide some insight at times, but most often cloud the reality that we are laboring under a completely different set of circumstances and assumptions today.
The world has changed:
Rumsfeld is always worth reading; he is a disciplined and logical rhetorician, who regularly gives voice to what the administration is thinking.
Comparing our current political division over the "War on Terror" to the "cynicism and moral confusion" and "appeasement" that encouraged the rise of fascism and Nazism during the 1930s, Rumsfeld called on Americans to learn the lessons of history and "face the central questions of our time:
With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world’s trouble?"
An aside: I like Rummy and tend to support him. But I fault him for the myriad poor choices and miscalculations in our current war in Iraq. He is the person in penultimate authority. From a corporate perspective, If we viewed DOD as a division in the larger Executive, based on overall performance and net results, Rumsfeld would have lost his job years ago. Having said that, Rumsfeld is a courageous and serious person, who embodies the best of the public service tradition.
"Fascism" and "Appeasement." Apparently, the White House is fully committed to employing the ghosts of the 1930s. I have a few questions about the analogy, as I do all historical analogies (some earlier indirect skepticism on my part here).
Notwithstanding, I welcome any serious conversation regarding the threat we face, and I appreciate another effort to take this debate to the public. However, extended discussions of 1938, as well as 1945, provide some insight at times, but most often cloud the reality that we are laboring under a completely different set of circumstances and assumptions today.
The world has changed:
Category: From the Heart
Posted by: an okie gardener
I haven't commented yet on this article in which the Vatican's chief exorcist is reported to have stated that Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the devil (or a demon).
At one point in college, when I thought I knew a lot more than I think I do now, I had decided that angels and demons were superfluous to explain the universe, probably mythic explanations for things such as self-destructive human sinfulness, and the ability of a transcendent God to interact with the universe. Two things changed my mind: first, probably from my background in science, I remembered that we can determine what exists in the universe only by experience and observation, not by a priori decision; second, a passage in the theologian John Macquarrie (no conservative) to the effect that it is rather egotistical of humans to suppose themselves alone with God in the material universe. As C.S. Lewis observed, belief in devils is not required of Christians--it's not in the Creed--but it is the plain reading of Scripture, the belief of the Church through the ages, and indeed the belief of most people of most cultures of human history.
For a time, in college again, I resumed belief in demons (and angels) but refused to believe in demon possession. To me it seemed that human perversity and sinfulness could explain all that needed to be explained regarding sin and sinful behavior. But, alas for my hypothesis, the same reasoning given above that moved me back to belief in demons also applied to demon possession--it is the plain reading of Scripture, the Church through the ages has believed in possession, and indeed most human cultures have beliefs in similar things. And, reality is not known a priori, but by observing what is. Also, though I won't discuss it now, I've observed more. (more below)
At one point in college, when I thought I knew a lot more than I think I do now, I had decided that angels and demons were superfluous to explain the universe, probably mythic explanations for things such as self-destructive human sinfulness, and the ability of a transcendent God to interact with the universe. Two things changed my mind: first, probably from my background in science, I remembered that we can determine what exists in the universe only by experience and observation, not by a priori decision; second, a passage in the theologian John Macquarrie (no conservative) to the effect that it is rather egotistical of humans to suppose themselves alone with God in the material universe. As C.S. Lewis observed, belief in devils is not required of Christians--it's not in the Creed--but it is the plain reading of Scripture, the belief of the Church through the ages, and indeed the belief of most people of most cultures of human history.
For a time, in college again, I resumed belief in demons (and angels) but refused to believe in demon possession. To me it seemed that human perversity and sinfulness could explain all that needed to be explained regarding sin and sinful behavior. But, alas for my hypothesis, the same reasoning given above that moved me back to belief in demons also applied to demon possession--it is the plain reading of Scripture, the Church through the ages has believed in possession, and indeed most human cultures have beliefs in similar things. And, reality is not known a priori, but by observing what is. Also, though I won't discuss it now, I've observed more. (more below)
A Waco Farmer and Tocqueville have been going at it hammer-and-tongs over the issue of same-sex marriage: in part their disagreement involves the issue of the proper relationship between religion and public policy. Read here. In an attempt to be helpful ( or perhaps to commit an act of hubris), and to help me clarify my own thoughts, I am attempting to suggest some points I think are valid regarding the use of religious rhetoric and reasoning in the public square. Since the topic is huge, I am breaking it down into various angles of approach. My first posting looked at the issue historically. Read here.
This post looks at the issue from the angle of philosophy and oberservation. (Read below)
This post looks at the issue from the angle of philosophy and oberservation. (Read below)
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Mass. Gov.Mitt Romney (R), speaking in Iowa, touted the necessity for all immigrants to learn English. He held up as a positive example the experiment in Massachusetts to move away from a bilingual track to an "English immerson" approach in which English only is the language of instruction, citing improved test scores. From Des Moines Register newspaper. Read article. I think that the 08 presidential election will have immigration, assimilation, and the future of American culture as centerpiece issues, along with terrorism. Romney seems to be staking out his ground.
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) is now on his annual walking tour of Iowa. Though he will not announce himself officially, he acts like someone who wants the Democratic presidential nomination in 08. From the Des Moines Register. Read the article. I think that to have any chance at all, he must win the Iowa caucuses. On this year's walk he is meeting with Democrat policital activists, a necessity for the caucuses. A problem for him in the Dem primaries: he is centrist, more interested in governing for the well-being of the citizenry of Iowa (as he understands it), than in national political headlines or radical rhetoric. For some Iowans, his annual walks are their biggest reminder who is in the governor's office. However, if he can win the Dem nomination, his weakness in the Dem primaries would be his strength in the general election.
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) is now on his annual walking tour of Iowa. Though he will not announce himself officially, he acts like someone who wants the Democratic presidential nomination in 08. From the Des Moines Register. Read the article. I think that to have any chance at all, he must win the Iowa caucuses. On this year's walk he is meeting with Democrat policital activists, a necessity for the caucuses. A problem for him in the Dem primaries: he is centrist, more interested in governing for the well-being of the citizenry of Iowa (as he understands it), than in national political headlines or radical rhetoric. For some Iowans, his annual walks are their biggest reminder who is in the governor's office. However, if he can win the Dem nomination, his weakness in the Dem primaries would be his strength in the general election.
29/08: Mainline Decline, part 3
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
From the Dallas Morning News newspaper, link from Religion Headlines, an article on the slow-moving schism in the Episcopal Church. The largest Episcopal parish in Texas with 2200 worshippers each weekend (huge by Episcopal standards) already is leaving the denomination, though remaining within the world-wide Anglican communion. Seven diocese are evaluating their position within the Episcopal denomination. Biggest issue: same-sex unions and gay bishops. Interestingly, the only picture accompanying this article is of a minority member of the Dallas Diocese, a member in favor of same-sex union. Read article.
The seven Diocese are: Dallas; Central Florida; Fort Worth, Tx; Fresno, Cal.; Pittsburgh; Springfield, Ill., and South Carolina. (For you Baptists)--A diocese is the area under the authority of one bishop. A parish is a "church." The Episcopalians have produced far and away more presidents of the United States than mere size would indicate. This fact reflects the elite status of many Episcopalians.
The seven Diocese are: Dallas; Central Florida; Fort Worth, Tx; Fresno, Cal.; Pittsburgh; Springfield, Ill., and South Carolina. (For you Baptists)--A diocese is the area under the authority of one bishop. A parish is a "church." The Episcopalians have produced far and away more presidents of the United States than mere size would indicate. This fact reflects the elite status of many Episcopalians.
28/08: Religion and Public Policy
Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs? In a previous post I argued that from an engagement with Scripture, Christians should reject same-sex practice, while welcoming into our congregations those who struggled with same-sex desires. Here. A Waco Farmer then commented "On the other hand, and although I don't think this is your point in this particular post--but it is relevant to past discussions, this excellent essay in no way changes my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy. For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law. I maintain, and I think you agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives." His comment brought a response from Tocqueville. (see post below)
I now begin an answer to Farmer; since the issue is so large and complex I will give a short answer, then over the course of several posts with give-and-take, give my longer answer. Short answer: sort of. (cont. below)
I now begin an answer to Farmer; since the issue is so large and complex I will give a short answer, then over the course of several posts with give-and-take, give my longer answer. Short answer: sort of. (cont. below)
Last week, the Okie Gardener posted a detailed and thoughtful essay exploring the issue of the Church, biblical authority and same-sex marriage, "Same-Sex Practice and American Christianity." Based on his "engagement with Scripture," the Gardener argued that the Church should welcome and minister to same-sex-oriented individuals as part of the fraternity of fallen humanity--but not condone same-sex sex (and certainly not extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex partners).
In the comments section, I agreed but added that his "excellent essay in no way change[d] my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy.
"For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law.
"I maintain, and I think you [Okie Gardener] agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives."
To which, "Tocqueville" replied:
"Farmer, your post sounds like classic Orwellian "double-think" to me.
"I firmly believe that X is true. Therefore, I am (naturally) in support of a law that rejects x, that is, a falsehood. And in supporting that law, I support radically upsetting the cake of tradition and human history. Which is to say that I don't really believe that society is "an eternal contract among the living, the dead, and the unborn." Screw the dead--they weren't nearly as sophisticated as we are. Why should we continue their benighted view of marriage? Oh, and screw the unborn for that matter, who will have to grow up (and suffer) in this permissive culture that promotes, endorses a false reality of human flourishing (which, by the way, I firmly believe is false).
"Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not. If it is, as you say, then stamping it with the ancient and holy imprimatur of marriage only contributes to the further unraveling of the social and moral fabric.
"Even the most ardent champion of pluralism need not countenance or endorse an acknowledged falsehood that is admittedly "not God's plan" for human happiness. I for one cannot imagine standing behind a holy and righteous God on the day of judgment to account my willful and deliberate complicity and moral confusion manifest by the promotion and endorsement of giving legal sanction to an abomination. If the falsehood prevails, so be it. But it should do so without our assistance and endorsement.
"This is not even a question of where the radical change has already taken place and we simply throw our hands up because what's done is done. This is a case where you are preemptively and proactively attempting to turn the status quo upside down on its head by abandoning tradition and the wisdom of the ancients."
End Quote.
"Tocqueville" crafts a cogent and articulate critique of my position and an eloquent restatement of his argument--and worthy of a more prominent place. Also, I think it highlights our basic disagreement.
In the comments section, I agreed but added that his "excellent essay in no way change[d] my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy.
"For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law.
"I maintain, and I think you [Okie Gardener] agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives."
To which, "Tocqueville" replied:
"Farmer, your post sounds like classic Orwellian "double-think" to me.
"I firmly believe that X is true. Therefore, I am (naturally) in support of a law that rejects x, that is, a falsehood. And in supporting that law, I support radically upsetting the cake of tradition and human history. Which is to say that I don't really believe that society is "an eternal contract among the living, the dead, and the unborn." Screw the dead--they weren't nearly as sophisticated as we are. Why should we continue their benighted view of marriage? Oh, and screw the unborn for that matter, who will have to grow up (and suffer) in this permissive culture that promotes, endorses a false reality of human flourishing (which, by the way, I firmly believe is false).
"Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not. If it is, as you say, then stamping it with the ancient and holy imprimatur of marriage only contributes to the further unraveling of the social and moral fabric.
"Even the most ardent champion of pluralism need not countenance or endorse an acknowledged falsehood that is admittedly "not God's plan" for human happiness. I for one cannot imagine standing behind a holy and righteous God on the day of judgment to account my willful and deliberate complicity and moral confusion manifest by the promotion and endorsement of giving legal sanction to an abomination. If the falsehood prevails, so be it. But it should do so without our assistance and endorsement.
"This is not even a question of where the radical change has already taken place and we simply throw our hands up because what's done is done. This is a case where you are preemptively and proactively attempting to turn the status quo upside down on its head by abandoning tradition and the wisdom of the ancients."
End Quote.
"Tocqueville" crafts a cogent and articulate critique of my position and an eloquent restatement of his argument--and worthy of a more prominent place. Also, I think it highlights our basic disagreement.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
For several years now the Democratic Party has counted on gaining almost the entire black vote. And, Democrats have used black churches as focal points for campaigning. Now more signs are appearing that Dems may no longer be able to take the black vote for granted and assume that black pastors and churches will support Dem candidates. Read this article concerning the governor's race in Ohio.
