This link will take you to a website that will list the companies selling gasoline made from USA and Canadian petroleum.
Sinclair is perhaps the most common.
Citizen Warrior has more; as does the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
In the last several decades we have made the largest transfer of wealth in history from Europe, Japan, and the U.S. to the oil-producing nations. The billions of dollars transfered to many nations in the Middle East, most noticably Saudi Arabia, have funded militant Islam around the globe. Buy gas from Saudi Arabia and support terrorism.
Mariner posted a comment that deserves a wider read:
I won't get into the macro-level concerns against movements like these, but instead I'll point out a few errors in the cited material:
1) The Citizen Warrior article contains a link to a chart showing percentage of crude oil imports coming from the Persian Gulf. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/...)
Errors here:
a)The Persian Gulf as defined here includes Iraq. Natural, for a purely geographic definition, but in this case, we as Americans WANT to buy Iraqi oil! If we want to have a stable Iraq, if we want to lower our troop numbers there (and limit American deaths), we NEED an economically viable Iraqi government. This hinges on oil exports. Conservatives of all people should be first lining up to buy Iraqi oil.
b) As alluded to earlier, "Persian Gulf" as a political designation is very difficult to support. Yes, the Saudi government has supported madrassas which have supported terrorist training. They should be out. Hell no, we shouldn't support Iran. But the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain? We would have no military presence in the Gulf if not for the support of these countries (Navy base in Bahrain, Air Force base in Qatar, major Army post in Kuwait.) I'm having a tough time buying a boycott of these countries.
c) Again, the "Persian Gulf" designation: this list focuses on one region (which we've already seen is 2/3 wrong anyway) to the detriment of others. What about gas from Venezuela? Russia? Citgo is transparent enough: it = Hugo Chavez. Oil from GazProm or LukOil (both Russia) is more difficult to distinguish, and should be pointed out. Also, some of the companies listed as "good" for low percentages of gulf oil do far more damage elsewhere. Shell, for example, is hand-in-glove with the Nigerian government, ranked the most corrupt in the world. I personally don't buy Shell gasoline, because the amount of human suffering inflicted in Nigeria as a result of its and the government's policies is astronomical.
2) The Terror-free oil initiative:
Errors:
a) They lose for sheer logical disconnect. The two categories for oil companies? "Companies that do not import oil from the Persian Gulf" and "Companies that finance terrorism by importing oil from the Middle East". Apples and oranges between Persian Gulf and Middle East, for one. Two, it's a mere tautology to speak of Persian Gulf equaling Terror-support. Trust me, *most* governments in the Middle East (or Persian Gulf, if you prefer) have as much if not more to fear from Islamic extremism as we do.
b) Maybe a little more nit-picking, but the list of "good" companies includes a caveat for Hess and Sunoco, as they import oil from Algeria, "home of GIA and GSPC." First, the GSPC doesn't exist anymore - it's now AQIM, but that's just a detail. More importantly, the GIA and GSPC's primary enemy and raison d'etre is the Algerian government. Who gets oil revenue, and uses a portion of this revenue to finance anti-terrorism operations? - the government. [We equip and train these troops, too]
I think most of these errors come down to portraying the entire situation in too broad of terms: It's purely "us" and "them", regardless of who "they" actually ARE. That's misidentifying the problem; the solution is misidentified as well. I fully recognize the value of conservative viewpoints, but economic isolationism is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem - I don't think it will work.
Granted: the category "Persian Gulf" is too simple and misleading. And agreed, Venezuala and Russia should not be encouraged right now with our oil money. Agreed, no oil money to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Re: "economic isolationism," I still think it is a tremendous problem for us in transfering so much wealth to other nations. And, there are two things no nation can be dependent on and survive long as an independent nation--food and energy.
Sinclair is perhaps the most common.
Citizen Warrior has more; as does the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
In the last several decades we have made the largest transfer of wealth in history from Europe, Japan, and the U.S. to the oil-producing nations. The billions of dollars transfered to many nations in the Middle East, most noticably Saudi Arabia, have funded militant Islam around the globe. Buy gas from Saudi Arabia and support terrorism.
Mariner posted a comment that deserves a wider read:
I won't get into the macro-level concerns against movements like these, but instead I'll point out a few errors in the cited material:
1) The Citizen Warrior article contains a link to a chart showing percentage of crude oil imports coming from the Persian Gulf. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/...)
Errors here:
a)The Persian Gulf as defined here includes Iraq. Natural, for a purely geographic definition, but in this case, we as Americans WANT to buy Iraqi oil! If we want to have a stable Iraq, if we want to lower our troop numbers there (and limit American deaths), we NEED an economically viable Iraqi government. This hinges on oil exports. Conservatives of all people should be first lining up to buy Iraqi oil.
b) As alluded to earlier, "Persian Gulf" as a political designation is very difficult to support. Yes, the Saudi government has supported madrassas which have supported terrorist training. They should be out. Hell no, we shouldn't support Iran. But the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain? We would have no military presence in the Gulf if not for the support of these countries (Navy base in Bahrain, Air Force base in Qatar, major Army post in Kuwait.) I'm having a tough time buying a boycott of these countries.
c) Again, the "Persian Gulf" designation: this list focuses on one region (which we've already seen is 2/3 wrong anyway) to the detriment of others. What about gas from Venezuela? Russia? Citgo is transparent enough: it = Hugo Chavez. Oil from GazProm or LukOil (both Russia) is more difficult to distinguish, and should be pointed out. Also, some of the companies listed as "good" for low percentages of gulf oil do far more damage elsewhere. Shell, for example, is hand-in-glove with the Nigerian government, ranked the most corrupt in the world. I personally don't buy Shell gasoline, because the amount of human suffering inflicted in Nigeria as a result of its and the government's policies is astronomical.
2) The Terror-free oil initiative:
Errors:
a) They lose for sheer logical disconnect. The two categories for oil companies? "Companies that do not import oil from the Persian Gulf" and "Companies that finance terrorism by importing oil from the Middle East". Apples and oranges between Persian Gulf and Middle East, for one. Two, it's a mere tautology to speak of Persian Gulf equaling Terror-support. Trust me, *most* governments in the Middle East (or Persian Gulf, if you prefer) have as much if not more to fear from Islamic extremism as we do.
b) Maybe a little more nit-picking, but the list of "good" companies includes a caveat for Hess and Sunoco, as they import oil from Algeria, "home of GIA and GSPC." First, the GSPC doesn't exist anymore - it's now AQIM, but that's just a detail. More importantly, the GIA and GSPC's primary enemy and raison d'etre is the Algerian government. Who gets oil revenue, and uses a portion of this revenue to finance anti-terrorism operations? - the government. [We equip and train these troops, too]
I think most of these errors come down to portraying the entire situation in too broad of terms: It's purely "us" and "them", regardless of who "they" actually ARE. That's misidentifying the problem; the solution is misidentified as well. I fully recognize the value of conservative viewpoints, but economic isolationism is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem - I don't think it will work.
Granted: the category "Persian Gulf" is too simple and misleading. And agreed, Venezuala and Russia should not be encouraged right now with our oil money. Agreed, no oil money to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Re: "economic isolationism," I still think it is a tremendous problem for us in transfering so much wealth to other nations. And, there are two things no nation can be dependent on and survive long as an independent nation--food and energy.
FROM WIKI: White privilege is a sociological concept that describes advantages purportedly enjoyed by white persons beyond that which is commonly experienced by non-white people in those same social, political, and economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). It differs from racism or prejudice in that a person benefiting from white privilege may not necessarily hold racist beliefs or prejudices themselves. Often, the person benefiting is unaware of his or her supposed privilege.
Today I escorted my sixty-six year-old mother to the Department of Public Safety in Waco. Having recently moved from Southern California to Central Texas, she sought to obtain an in-state driver's license. However, our ostensibly mundane mission proved surprisingly impossible. My mom ran into a bureaucratic buzz saw--and the buzz saw won.
What happened?
Texas DPS requires proof of identification in order to issue a Texas Driver's License, of course. We wouldn't have it any other way. For the three-tiered system of verification, see this link.
How my mom ran afoul of the system:
She has a Texas birth certificate issued in Marlin, Texas, circa 1942. She has a social security card re-issued by the feds circa 1990. She has a current California driver's license issued circa 2004. She has numerous credit cards, insurance cards, medicare cards, prescription drug cards, local utility bills, newly issued car registration from the state of Texas, myriad local homeowner documents, and proof of a relationship with a Waco bank. But her 1942 birth certificate did not anticipate her subsequent name changes (she has been married twice). To further complicate things, she dropped her given "first name" decades ago. These inconsistencies make the state of Texas very suspicious.
Bottom Line: unless she has her name legally changed (birth certificate amended) and/or brings in her two marriage licenses and certificate of divorce, the Lone Star State cannot sanction her as a legal Texas driver.
As I was unexpectedly drawn into this tawdry drama at the counter of the local DPS, a slow realization came over me: we were not in Kansas (or even Texas) anymore. In a very short time, our way of life has changed dramatically. We have crossed over into a brave new world in which regulations trump common sense, community, and, more importantly, consanguinity. As I attempted to explain to Ms. (let's call her) Ramirez and Trooper (let's call him) Gonzales that my mom was "okay," it occurred to me that the old days of sixty-six year-old white grandmothers automatically getting the benefit of the doubt were fading fast.
This is not a new observation. We have seen and heard the jokes about nuns being "frisked" at the airport while Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden look-a-likes stride past security checkpoints undeterred. To be fair, we are told, we have to be random. If we don't frisk the grandmas, we are racial profiling. But in Waco, Texas? Do we have to be this unreasonable and uncompromising in this venue?
Ms. Ramirez and Trooper Gonzales assured us that these procedures existed for our own protection. Although I can tell you that those sentiments did not sooth our pique.
Of course, the ID regulations are a product of the post-September-11th world. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: May the Terrorists Burn in Hell!!!
But there is more to this anecdote than just anti-terrorism. This is zero tolerance. And zero tolerance is the opposite of (perhaps even the antidote to) white privilege. How can you combat white privilege? Make all men (and grandmothers) exactly equal before an entirely heartless bureaucracy. "Come on. You know us. It's okay." What am I really saying? Come on. We're white and upstanding. We're okay. No dice. Not anymore.
Evidently, white privilege does not go very far these days. Is that a good thing? Undoubtedly, many of us are reading this right now and applauding, saying that white privilege needs to go. And, almost certainly, many of us are reading this right now denying that white privilege even exists.
An Aside: white privilege does exist. Believe me. Not just white privilege--but white entitlement. We were very angry. We were hurt. We felt extremely mistreated. We deserved some consideration--but, instead, we received a cold-blooded ruling based on a lifeless code of rules and regulations. And, quite frankly, right or wrong, fair or unfair, we suspected that Trooper Gonzales may have enjoyed exercising his power over us to make our lives less convenient.
In truth, over time, millions of persons of color (and plenty of others of just plain low means) have faced the same frustration and humiliation that we encountered today. Tonight, my heart goes out to them more than ever.
On the other hand, treating us all like a subhuman species of non-verified potential criminals cannot be the only answer. Somewhere between white privilege and zero tolerance there has to be some middle ground. It was abundantly clear to any rational observer that my mom was not Muhammad Atta. Somebody ought to have the courage to look at her ten pieces of ID (even when none of them conform exactly to the prescribed code), and make a humane common sense decision.
What's more, we really did deserve some consideration. Not because we are white, but because my mom has spent sixty-six years following the rules and establishing herself as a model citizen. Her son teaches at the community college. Her daughter-in-law works for the local university. Her brother works for the county. We are good folks and assets to the community. We deserve the benefit of the doubt.
We need to figure out a way to get this right. Discrimination based on race was an abomination. Erasing discrimination based on common sense and merit is a foolish policy that will eventually destroy the fabric of our society.
Good citizenship ought to have its privileges.
Today I escorted my sixty-six year-old mother to the Department of Public Safety in Waco. Having recently moved from Southern California to Central Texas, she sought to obtain an in-state driver's license. However, our ostensibly mundane mission proved surprisingly impossible. My mom ran into a bureaucratic buzz saw--and the buzz saw won.
What happened?
Texas DPS requires proof of identification in order to issue a Texas Driver's License, of course. We wouldn't have it any other way. For the three-tiered system of verification, see this link.
How my mom ran afoul of the system:
She has a Texas birth certificate issued in Marlin, Texas, circa 1942. She has a social security card re-issued by the feds circa 1990. She has a current California driver's license issued circa 2004. She has numerous credit cards, insurance cards, medicare cards, prescription drug cards, local utility bills, newly issued car registration from the state of Texas, myriad local homeowner documents, and proof of a relationship with a Waco bank. But her 1942 birth certificate did not anticipate her subsequent name changes (she has been married twice). To further complicate things, she dropped her given "first name" decades ago. These inconsistencies make the state of Texas very suspicious.
Bottom Line: unless she has her name legally changed (birth certificate amended) and/or brings in her two marriage licenses and certificate of divorce, the Lone Star State cannot sanction her as a legal Texas driver.
As I was unexpectedly drawn into this tawdry drama at the counter of the local DPS, a slow realization came over me: we were not in Kansas (or even Texas) anymore. In a very short time, our way of life has changed dramatically. We have crossed over into a brave new world in which regulations trump common sense, community, and, more importantly, consanguinity. As I attempted to explain to Ms. (let's call her) Ramirez and Trooper (let's call him) Gonzales that my mom was "okay," it occurred to me that the old days of sixty-six year-old white grandmothers automatically getting the benefit of the doubt were fading fast.
This is not a new observation. We have seen and heard the jokes about nuns being "frisked" at the airport while Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden look-a-likes stride past security checkpoints undeterred. To be fair, we are told, we have to be random. If we don't frisk the grandmas, we are racial profiling. But in Waco, Texas? Do we have to be this unreasonable and uncompromising in this venue?
Ms. Ramirez and Trooper Gonzales assured us that these procedures existed for our own protection. Although I can tell you that those sentiments did not sooth our pique.
Of course, the ID regulations are a product of the post-September-11th world. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: May the Terrorists Burn in Hell!!!
But there is more to this anecdote than just anti-terrorism. This is zero tolerance. And zero tolerance is the opposite of (perhaps even the antidote to) white privilege. How can you combat white privilege? Make all men (and grandmothers) exactly equal before an entirely heartless bureaucracy. "Come on. You know us. It's okay." What am I really saying? Come on. We're white and upstanding. We're okay. No dice. Not anymore.
Evidently, white privilege does not go very far these days. Is that a good thing? Undoubtedly, many of us are reading this right now and applauding, saying that white privilege needs to go. And, almost certainly, many of us are reading this right now denying that white privilege even exists.
An Aside: white privilege does exist. Believe me. Not just white privilege--but white entitlement. We were very angry. We were hurt. We felt extremely mistreated. We deserved some consideration--but, instead, we received a cold-blooded ruling based on a lifeless code of rules and regulations. And, quite frankly, right or wrong, fair or unfair, we suspected that Trooper Gonzales may have enjoyed exercising his power over us to make our lives less convenient.
In truth, over time, millions of persons of color (and plenty of others of just plain low means) have faced the same frustration and humiliation that we encountered today. Tonight, my heart goes out to them more than ever.
On the other hand, treating us all like a subhuman species of non-verified potential criminals cannot be the only answer. Somewhere between white privilege and zero tolerance there has to be some middle ground. It was abundantly clear to any rational observer that my mom was not Muhammad Atta. Somebody ought to have the courage to look at her ten pieces of ID (even when none of them conform exactly to the prescribed code), and make a humane common sense decision.
What's more, we really did deserve some consideration. Not because we are white, but because my mom has spent sixty-six years following the rules and establishing herself as a model citizen. Her son teaches at the community college. Her daughter-in-law works for the local university. Her brother works for the county. We are good folks and assets to the community. We deserve the benefit of the doubt.
We need to figure out a way to get this right. Discrimination based on race was an abomination. Erasing discrimination based on common sense and merit is a foolish policy that will eventually destroy the fabric of our society.
Good citizenship ought to have its privileges.
16/10: Whose Ox is it Anyway?
I wrote this piece for another venue (it was "give a conservative the mike night" at Osler's Razor). But I thought some of you might find it interesting.
Recently, a Saturday Night Live skit skewered Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, George Soros, “deadbeat” homebuyers, speculators, and Herb and Marion Sandler for their roles in the mortgage meltdown. Pretty clever. To my great surprise, it proved insightfully critical of Democrats.
Then, last week, without explanation, the clip disappeared off the program's website. Why? According to spokespersons from SNL and NBC, when pressed for answers, the bit "didn't meet [their] standards."
Really!?!
It did not meet SNL standards? Really!?!
What standards exactly? Standards of accuracy? Good taste? Fairness? Standards? Really!?!
Do you remember the one about (fill in your favorite tasteless SNL moment here)? But this one did not meet your standards?
Really!?!
No harm, no foul—I suppose. After a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the conservative blogosphere, the skit is back on the website—but, come now, standards?
REALLY!?!
The Good News: the Tina Fey/Sarah Palin material, evidently, continues to live up to all aforementioned SNL “standards.”
Does the Media lean left? Pretty hard to name a sitcom or drama with a conservative undertone. There is no conservative late night talk show or equivalent to SNL. I cannot think of a conservative David E. Kelly or Aaron Sorkin. Or, for some of us old timers, a conservative Norman Lear. Anybody?
Are there logical reasons for this? Certainly. Creative folks are naturally more prone to a “liberal” sensibility. Entertainment is a product of New York and L.A. Conservatives just aren’t that funny?
Am I whining? I don’t think so. I don’t mean to be. I have come to accept the world as it is. I am not one to rail against the liberal bias of the mainstream media. I am, in fact, a big fan of Saturday Night Live, and I have been, literally, since the very beginning.
I suffer their politics because I enjoy their art. Such is life. The perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Important Confession: I am also a big fan of NPR. I admire their artistry. I acknowledge their left-leaning bias, which often colors their coverage of Republicans and conservatives in unflattering and unfriendly ways. Nevertheless, I appreciate the skill and erudition that permeates every aspect of their operation.
However, there are times when the subtle bias of NPR makes me cringe. The other morning I was listening to a story about a bell-weather county in Indiana in which the poor NPR correspondent, Howard Burkes, dutifully reported on three ignoramuses who wondered whether they could vote for a Muslim. Berkes immediately inserted into the audio narrative, with his well-modulated authority, a correction: “of course, he [Obama] has always been a Christian.” Later, a more enlightened white voter asserted (without challenge): "If Obama were a white man, I'd say he'd be way out in front here and nationally."
According to reputable national polls, approximately 90 percent of voters understand that Barack Obama is a professing Christian. Give national news organizations credit for digging up the ignorant tenth in disproportionate numbers to buttress the obligatory mention of the most famously false accusation in American history. Then, the corrective from Berkes: “he’s always been a Christian.” From birth? Funny—but also a cultural commentary that even this basic fact of Protestant Christianity somehow eluded this top national reporter. This is a mistake you might expect from one trying to make sense of a foreign culture. More importantly, it also omits a telling episode in the life of the candidate (the way in which Obama came to Christ). And then there is the ubiquitous assertion that “race” is somehow holding back this candidate. Presumably, if he were white (like John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or George McGovern), Barack Obama would be fourteen points ahead by now.
As I say, I love NPR—but this story is just another example of the unexamined assumptions that permeate even the best reporting in America.
Again, don’t hear me complaining. But I do get a little frustrated when I hear liberals rail against FOX News and other arms of the conservative media as somehow egregiously biased (compared, presumably, to the mainstream media culture).
FULL DISCLOSURE: I should mention that I do not watch FOX News on a regular basis. Why? I have an ultra-frugal cable package, which, blessedly, does not offer FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, or the Cartoon Network. Thanks be to God. However, my package does come with C-SPAN 1 & 2 (my wife has long suspected some kind of conspiracy regarding that piece of good fortune). FYI: there is no skullduggery involved—I am just lucky that way.
Having said that, I do monitor FOX News—and feel competent to comment on the following question:
How is FOX News different from the other network and cable news organizations?
Fox is not under the delusion of "objectivity." The liberal mainstream media labors under the self-serving certainty that they are reporting the news of the day in an objective way.
No matter how many studies show that an obscenely high percentage of "Beltway" reporters vote for Democratic candidates, mainstream reporters continue to argue that their personal politics do not impinge on their ability to report the news in a detached manner. They are professionals. In their own minds, they are expertly objective.
I have always believed that the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced," was partly a parody of the mainstreamer’s tortured self-perception.
What do I mean by that?
Most of the Fox pioneers were veteran reporters and producers from the mainstream orgs (think Britt Hume formerly of ABC News). They had toiled in the fields of their oppressors for years. When they broke free and raised their own flag, they signaled their independence and defiance with a series of slogans like "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced."
Moreover, they knew well that the competition would see FOX as conservatives reporting the news through a lens of conservatism. But they also knew that their liberal counterparts would NOT see FOX as their mirror image; the established media would continue to see themselves as faithful adherents to the sacred calling of objectivity; they would see FOX News as unwashed infidels desecrating the holy temple of objective journalism.
The FOX News brain trust fully expected that their conservative cable news network would make the mainstream newspersons apoplectic. Furthermore, I am convinced that they think the whole situation is quite hilarious.
Bottom Line: it really comes down to whose ox is getting gored. FOX viewers appreciate a reading and framing of the news sympathetic to conservatism. This makes some non-conservatives very angry. Liberals should calm down, be more generous, and let conservatives have one news outlet.
Recently, a Saturday Night Live skit skewered Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, George Soros, “deadbeat” homebuyers, speculators, and Herb and Marion Sandler for their roles in the mortgage meltdown. Pretty clever. To my great surprise, it proved insightfully critical of Democrats.
Then, last week, without explanation, the clip disappeared off the program's website. Why? According to spokespersons from SNL and NBC, when pressed for answers, the bit "didn't meet [their] standards."
Really!?!
It did not meet SNL standards? Really!?!
What standards exactly? Standards of accuracy? Good taste? Fairness? Standards? Really!?!
Do you remember the one about (fill in your favorite tasteless SNL moment here)? But this one did not meet your standards?
Really!?!
No harm, no foul—I suppose. After a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the conservative blogosphere, the skit is back on the website—but, come now, standards?
REALLY!?!
The Good News: the Tina Fey/Sarah Palin material, evidently, continues to live up to all aforementioned SNL “standards.”
Does the Media lean left? Pretty hard to name a sitcom or drama with a conservative undertone. There is no conservative late night talk show or equivalent to SNL. I cannot think of a conservative David E. Kelly or Aaron Sorkin. Or, for some of us old timers, a conservative Norman Lear. Anybody?
Are there logical reasons for this? Certainly. Creative folks are naturally more prone to a “liberal” sensibility. Entertainment is a product of New York and L.A. Conservatives just aren’t that funny?
Am I whining? I don’t think so. I don’t mean to be. I have come to accept the world as it is. I am not one to rail against the liberal bias of the mainstream media. I am, in fact, a big fan of Saturday Night Live, and I have been, literally, since the very beginning.
I suffer their politics because I enjoy their art. Such is life. The perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Important Confession: I am also a big fan of NPR. I admire their artistry. I acknowledge their left-leaning bias, which often colors their coverage of Republicans and conservatives in unflattering and unfriendly ways. Nevertheless, I appreciate the skill and erudition that permeates every aspect of their operation.
However, there are times when the subtle bias of NPR makes me cringe. The other morning I was listening to a story about a bell-weather county in Indiana in which the poor NPR correspondent, Howard Burkes, dutifully reported on three ignoramuses who wondered whether they could vote for a Muslim. Berkes immediately inserted into the audio narrative, with his well-modulated authority, a correction: “of course, he [Obama] has always been a Christian.” Later, a more enlightened white voter asserted (without challenge): "If Obama were a white man, I'd say he'd be way out in front here and nationally."
According to reputable national polls, approximately 90 percent of voters understand that Barack Obama is a professing Christian. Give national news organizations credit for digging up the ignorant tenth in disproportionate numbers to buttress the obligatory mention of the most famously false accusation in American history. Then, the corrective from Berkes: “he’s always been a Christian.” From birth? Funny—but also a cultural commentary that even this basic fact of Protestant Christianity somehow eluded this top national reporter. This is a mistake you might expect from one trying to make sense of a foreign culture. More importantly, it also omits a telling episode in the life of the candidate (the way in which Obama came to Christ). And then there is the ubiquitous assertion that “race” is somehow holding back this candidate. Presumably, if he were white (like John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or George McGovern), Barack Obama would be fourteen points ahead by now.
As I say, I love NPR—but this story is just another example of the unexamined assumptions that permeate even the best reporting in America.
Again, don’t hear me complaining. But I do get a little frustrated when I hear liberals rail against FOX News and other arms of the conservative media as somehow egregiously biased (compared, presumably, to the mainstream media culture).
FULL DISCLOSURE: I should mention that I do not watch FOX News on a regular basis. Why? I have an ultra-frugal cable package, which, blessedly, does not offer FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, or the Cartoon Network. Thanks be to God. However, my package does come with C-SPAN 1 & 2 (my wife has long suspected some kind of conspiracy regarding that piece of good fortune). FYI: there is no skullduggery involved—I am just lucky that way.
Having said that, I do monitor FOX News—and feel competent to comment on the following question:
How is FOX News different from the other network and cable news organizations?
Fox is not under the delusion of "objectivity." The liberal mainstream media labors under the self-serving certainty that they are reporting the news of the day in an objective way.
No matter how many studies show that an obscenely high percentage of "Beltway" reporters vote for Democratic candidates, mainstream reporters continue to argue that their personal politics do not impinge on their ability to report the news in a detached manner. They are professionals. In their own minds, they are expertly objective.
I have always believed that the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced," was partly a parody of the mainstreamer’s tortured self-perception.
What do I mean by that?
Most of the Fox pioneers were veteran reporters and producers from the mainstream orgs (think Britt Hume formerly of ABC News). They had toiled in the fields of their oppressors for years. When they broke free and raised their own flag, they signaled their independence and defiance with a series of slogans like "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced."
Moreover, they knew well that the competition would see FOX as conservatives reporting the news through a lens of conservatism. But they also knew that their liberal counterparts would NOT see FOX as their mirror image; the established media would continue to see themselves as faithful adherents to the sacred calling of objectivity; they would see FOX News as unwashed infidels desecrating the holy temple of objective journalism.
The FOX News brain trust fully expected that their conservative cable news network would make the mainstream newspersons apoplectic. Furthermore, I am convinced that they think the whole situation is quite hilarious.
Bottom Line: it really comes down to whose ox is getting gored. FOX viewers appreciate a reading and framing of the news sympathetic to conservatism. This makes some non-conservatives very angry. Liberals should calm down, be more generous, and let conservatives have one news outlet.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Astute Bloggers has gathered all the information into one place on the massive vote fraud problem coming with this election. Looks like we'll see fraud on a scale that will make 2000 and 2004 seem clean by comparison. Also, tensions have been built up such that if it is a McCain victory, we can expect violence.
Welcome to bananna republic politics.
Link via Infidel Blogger's Alliance.
Welcome to bananna republic politics.
Link via Infidel Blogger's Alliance.
Category: The Economy
Posted by: Martian Mariner
Thomas Friedman has a lucid commentary on the causes of the current financial crisis in today's NYT: Why How Matters
A quote which well summarizes his argument:
You cannot tell tens of thousands of people that they can have the American dream — a home, for no money down and nothing to pay for two years — without that eventually catching up to you. The Puritan ethic of hard work and saving still matters.
I don't always agree with the NYT (see here), but she's still got some good things to say, especially when Tom Friedman's the one saying them.
A quote which well summarizes his argument:
You cannot tell tens of thousands of people that they can have the American dream — a home, for no money down and nothing to pay for two years — without that eventually catching up to you. The Puritan ethic of hard work and saving still matters.
I don't always agree with the NYT (see here), but she's still got some good things to say, especially when Tom Friedman's the one saying them.
In no particular order, the reasons I am not voting for Obama. (reasons for McCain later)
*Not accomplished enough. He has never run a business and met a payroll; or accomplished serious things in politics; nor does he have a list of serious publications detailing a political philosophy.
*He is not seasoned enough. It appears that his greatest testing came from the nomination contest with Hillary Clinton.
*His hubris. In spite of his weak record, he thinks he is qualified to be President of the United States. And, as Farmer pointed out, he cannot admit mistakes. He also seems unable to laugh at himself, or tolerate it when others laugh at him.
*His voting record in the United States Senate is the most liberal of that body; quite a feat in a group that includes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
*His political style is Chicago intimidation. Attack his critics personally as racist, distort their records, ally himself with voter fraud (do a web search for ACORN and OBAMA).
*He defended killing or allowing to die infants born alive during abortions.
*His long association with Hate Americans such as Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and others.
*His slippery half-truths and omissions when confronted about his past associations. Obama makes Tricky Dick Nixon seem straightforward.
*His long association with socialists and other leftists makes me assume that his governing philosophy will be hard left.
*I expect a president Obama to nominate judicial activist judges.
*The Democrats probably will control Congress after the elections. Obama in the White House will give Dems a free hand to do whatever they wish to the country.
*Michelle. Notice that she is being kept out of the news. She has a record of hating America, and being whiny and demanding in her jobs.
*I really do want a black president some day. But, I want this step up from our past to be accomplished by someone who will succeed. Someone with a track record of accomplishment.
*Obama seems lost without his teleprompter. His long pauses and stutters during unscripted speaking makes me think he is not quick on his feet.
*He seems naive about foreign policy, and on a deep level naive about power relations in the real world.
*His biggest executive decision so far of the General Election campaign: choosing Joe Biden as his running mate.
*Not accomplished enough. He has never run a business and met a payroll; or accomplished serious things in politics; nor does he have a list of serious publications detailing a political philosophy.
*He is not seasoned enough. It appears that his greatest testing came from the nomination contest with Hillary Clinton.
*His hubris. In spite of his weak record, he thinks he is qualified to be President of the United States. And, as Farmer pointed out, he cannot admit mistakes. He also seems unable to laugh at himself, or tolerate it when others laugh at him.
*His voting record in the United States Senate is the most liberal of that body; quite a feat in a group that includes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
*His political style is Chicago intimidation. Attack his critics personally as racist, distort their records, ally himself with voter fraud (do a web search for ACORN and OBAMA).
*He defended killing or allowing to die infants born alive during abortions.
*His long association with Hate Americans such as Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and others.
*His slippery half-truths and omissions when confronted about his past associations. Obama makes Tricky Dick Nixon seem straightforward.
*His long association with socialists and other leftists makes me assume that his governing philosophy will be hard left.
*I expect a president Obama to nominate judicial activist judges.
*The Democrats probably will control Congress after the elections. Obama in the White House will give Dems a free hand to do whatever they wish to the country.
*Michelle. Notice that she is being kept out of the news. She has a record of hating America, and being whiny and demanding in her jobs.
*I really do want a black president some day. But, I want this step up from our past to be accomplished by someone who will succeed. Someone with a track record of accomplishment.
*Obama seems lost without his teleprompter. His long pauses and stutters during unscripted speaking makes me think he is not quick on his feet.
*He seems naive about foreign policy, and on a deep level naive about power relations in the real world.
*His biggest executive decision so far of the General Election campaign: choosing Joe Biden as his running mate.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Today I opened my most recent retirement account statement from my time at Baylor. Ouch. Down has it gone since the last statement.
And I blame Barak Obama the and Democrats. Here.
If there is justice in our country, then the losers on election day will include Obama, Franks, and Dodd.
And I blame Barak Obama the and Democrats. Here.
If there is justice in our country, then the losers on election day will include Obama, Franks, and Dodd.
12/10: Enough With the Race Card!!!
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
John Lewis: "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."
Lewis also compares McCain and Palin to George Wallace, likening their 2008 campaign rhetoric to the incendiary political speech that contributed to the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham that killed four young girls.
See the full statement from the civil rights icon here.
McCain's reaction (as reported by ABC News):
"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign."
"I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track."
"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
MY REACTION:
Just when I was getting ready to sit back and make the most out of defeat, these guys keep kicking sand in my face.
A huge number of white people in this nation, for a myriad of reasons, desperately want to elect the first African American president of the United States. Am I saying that this sentiment is unanimous? No. Undoubtedly, there are large numbers of whites in America who are horrified at the thought of a black president. Having said that, I have a VERY STRONG hunch that the number of citizens who will cast their vote for a forty-seven-year-old political neophyte because he is black dwarfs the contingent of voters who will vote against him solely because of race.
For me, the potential good that might come as a result of a black president (simply because he is black) is something of a counterweight to the potentially disastrous scenario of a Democratically controlled White House and Congress. But, the axis of liberalism (the academy, Hollywood, and the mainstream media) is not about to let me enjoy this "silver lining" aspect of my impending defeat.
The liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Answer: because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I start salivating like Pavlov's pooch.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to swallow news analysis like the David von Drehle piece in TIME, which argues that as the economy falters, white America has no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. I suppose this assumption is based on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
Of course, this attack by John Lewis on John McCain is more in keeping with the old playbook. Back when the Obama Nation was chastising that well-known racist, Bill Clinton, for his incendiary comments, this thought kept running through my mind: what did he say, exactly?
The accepted evidence that served as the baseline for every one of those "racist Bill" stories was that Clinton repeatedly spewed patently racist comments during the campaign. But every time I read or viewed some form of that story line, it always reminded my of one of those Wikipedia entries in which some statement is followed by the phrase "[citation needed]."
What did he say? When did he say it? Where? What was the quote exactly?
In reality, Clinton simply suggested that the main reason better than 90 percent of African American Democratic primary voters (ironically, previously nearly 100-percent loyal to him) were now voting for an unknown African American candidate might be that Obama himself was an African American.
Was that racist? polarizing? unfair? implausible?
Polarizing maybe. But, seriously folks, did anyone ever really believe Clinton's assertion to be anything other than manifestly correct?
Now Johnny McCain and Sarah Palin are racist (again).
Why?
Because the McCain-Palin campaign has asserted that Barack Obama "pals around with a terrorist," which may or may not be true. We will probably never know. Why? Rather than address the true nature of the relationship with Bill Ayres, the Obama campaign and his "willing accomplices" in the prObama press shout down the question as racist.
When the Keating Five history comes up, McCain addresses the charge rationally and methodically. It is, in fact, an unfair charge--but we understand why it comes up (over and over again). McCain had a relationship with Charles Keating. Every official and/or objective entity that has ever looked at the imbroglio agrees that McCain showed poor judgment but did nothing (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) illegal or unethical.
But it continues to come up, and McCain continues to refute the charge. It is an association that invariably invites many questions.
How is "Ayres and Obama" different?
Part of it is style. Barack Obama has a strong tendency to be right all the time. He was right to say he would meet with rogue leaders without preconditions. Actually, he waffles on that one. Either he did not really say it, or, he said it, and he was right to say it--and now all of McCain's smartest advisers agree that he was right to say it. What he never says is that he misspoke.
He was right to say that the SURGE would not work. Actually, he waffles on that too, alternating between the SURGE really did not work and nobody in their right mind could have expected it to work--and it would have actually worked better if it had not worked. But never, "thankfully, I was wrong about the surge."
On Ayres: it doesn't really matter because Obama was eight years old when Ayres committed acts of terror, and he does not really know the man that well, and, if he does know him well, which he might, it is okay because Ayres is a college professor and a strong ally of Mayor Daley. But, in truth, none of it matters because the whole issue is soaked with racism and should be disqualified on that count. Next Question!!!
This has some backfire potential. John Lewis should have let sleeping dogs lie.
Lewis also compares McCain and Palin to George Wallace, likening their 2008 campaign rhetoric to the incendiary political speech that contributed to the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham that killed four young girls.
See the full statement from the civil rights icon here.
McCain's reaction (as reported by ABC News):
"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign."
"I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track."
"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
MY REACTION:
Just when I was getting ready to sit back and make the most out of defeat, these guys keep kicking sand in my face.
A huge number of white people in this nation, for a myriad of reasons, desperately want to elect the first African American president of the United States. Am I saying that this sentiment is unanimous? No. Undoubtedly, there are large numbers of whites in America who are horrified at the thought of a black president. Having said that, I have a VERY STRONG hunch that the number of citizens who will cast their vote for a forty-seven-year-old political neophyte because he is black dwarfs the contingent of voters who will vote against him solely because of race.
For me, the potential good that might come as a result of a black president (simply because he is black) is something of a counterweight to the potentially disastrous scenario of a Democratically controlled White House and Congress. But, the axis of liberalism (the academy, Hollywood, and the mainstream media) is not about to let me enjoy this "silver lining" aspect of my impending defeat.
The liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Answer: because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I start salivating like Pavlov's pooch.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to swallow news analysis like the David von Drehle piece in TIME, which argues that as the economy falters, white America has no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. I suppose this assumption is based on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
Of course, this attack by John Lewis on John McCain is more in keeping with the old playbook. Back when the Obama Nation was chastising that well-known racist, Bill Clinton, for his incendiary comments, this thought kept running through my mind: what did he say, exactly?
The accepted evidence that served as the baseline for every one of those "racist Bill" stories was that Clinton repeatedly spewed patently racist comments during the campaign. But every time I read or viewed some form of that story line, it always reminded my of one of those Wikipedia entries in which some statement is followed by the phrase "[citation needed]."
What did he say? When did he say it? Where? What was the quote exactly?
In reality, Clinton simply suggested that the main reason better than 90 percent of African American Democratic primary voters (ironically, previously nearly 100-percent loyal to him) were now voting for an unknown African American candidate might be that Obama himself was an African American.
Was that racist? polarizing? unfair? implausible?
Polarizing maybe. But, seriously folks, did anyone ever really believe Clinton's assertion to be anything other than manifestly correct?
Now Johnny McCain and Sarah Palin are racist (again).
Why?
Because the McCain-Palin campaign has asserted that Barack Obama "pals around with a terrorist," which may or may not be true. We will probably never know. Why? Rather than address the true nature of the relationship with Bill Ayres, the Obama campaign and his "willing accomplices" in the prObama press shout down the question as racist.
When the Keating Five history comes up, McCain addresses the charge rationally and methodically. It is, in fact, an unfair charge--but we understand why it comes up (over and over again). McCain had a relationship with Charles Keating. Every official and/or objective entity that has ever looked at the imbroglio agrees that McCain showed poor judgment but did nothing (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) illegal or unethical.
But it continues to come up, and McCain continues to refute the charge. It is an association that invariably invites many questions.
How is "Ayres and Obama" different?
Part of it is style. Barack Obama has a strong tendency to be right all the time. He was right to say he would meet with rogue leaders without preconditions. Actually, he waffles on that one. Either he did not really say it, or, he said it, and he was right to say it--and now all of McCain's smartest advisers agree that he was right to say it. What he never says is that he misspoke.
He was right to say that the SURGE would not work. Actually, he waffles on that too, alternating between the SURGE really did not work and nobody in their right mind could have expected it to work--and it would have actually worked better if it had not worked. But never, "thankfully, I was wrong about the surge."
On Ayres: it doesn't really matter because Obama was eight years old when Ayres committed acts of terror, and he does not really know the man that well, and, if he does know him well, which he might, it is okay because Ayres is a college professor and a strong ally of Mayor Daley. But, in truth, none of it matters because the whole issue is soaked with racism and should be disqualified on that count. Next Question!!!
This has some backfire potential. John Lewis should have let sleeping dogs lie.
12/10: A Pastoral Song of Life
I said, Grandpa what's this picture here?
Its all black and white; it aint real clear; is that you there?
He said, yeah, I was eleven; times were tough back in '35.
That's me and Uncle Joe just tryin to survive a cotton farm in the Great Depression.
If it looks like we were scared to death,
like a couple of kids just trying to save each other,
you should've seen it in color.
On an unofficial den outing this afternoon, I drove my six-year-old Cub Scout (and my nine-year-old civilian) out of town to a cornfield in Central Texas. On another busy weekend in another hectic month in another insanely harried semester, honestly, I was not looking forward to this time-consuming excursion. Leaving Waco in caravan, traveling north on I-35, we exited the interstate at Elm Mott, traveling northeast on FM 308 past Leroy. A few miles short of Birome, we cut-off onto an unpaved gravel county road and proceeded to the Kaska Family Farm for some bucolic diversion.
Like many of us, I have been distracted lately. I spent the first half hour in transit rolling down the highway at 88 feet per second, listening to the final minutes of the Red River Shootout on my car radio, and generally ignoring the children inside and the changing landscape outside my air-conditioned sedan. I spent the first few minutes on the "farm" paying the price of admission, scoping out the "attractions," and surveying the lay of the land--but not really seeing, listening, or feeling.
I was stressed, depressed, and detached. So much so, in fact, that I was blind and deaf to the land. This is somewhat unusual for me. While I have absolutely no inherited skill as a farmer, I tend toward sentimentality when I traverse the byways of Central Texas. In an almost mystical way, I often hear the echoes of generations of share croppers and hard-scrabble forebears when I travel the back roads of my ancestral home.
At some point, thankfully, amazingly, on a warm fall day under a shimmering blue sky, I finally heard the rustling of corn stalks. Awakening from my stupor, I heard the soft but reassuring and immutable pastoral song of life:
This is the real world. This is the natural world. Life began here. Life is renewed here. Life is grown here.
These rolling hills will be here when the titans of Wall Street are long gone.
These are the verdant pastures that have comforted the soul of man for millennia. This natural cathedral is the antidote to the Valley of the Shadow of Death.
After taking in deep breaths of this reinvigorating and cleansing fresh air, we headed back toward town. This time, though, with our windows down and senses open to the sights and sounds and smells of the land. We did not try to connect with the interstate on the return trip. Instead, we turned left at Leroy, passing a rural cemetery and the Baptist/Methodist Church, where the sign read: "WHAT ROLE ARE YOU PLAYING IN GOD'S UNIVERSE?"
Country music is appropriate on these farm-to-market roads, as it so often celebrates the interconnectedness and fragility of the human experience.
Ohh and this one here was taken over seas,
in the middle of hell in 1943, in the winter time;
you can almost see my breath.
That was my tail gunner, ole Johnny Magee.
He was a high school teacher from New Orleans.
And he had my back, right through the day we left.
If it looks like we were scared to death,
like a couple of kids just trying to save each other,
you should've seen it in color.
A picture's worth a thousand words,
but you can't see what those shades of gray keep covered,
you should've seen it in color.
Unlike other forms of popular music, country and western presupposes a value system based on the cyclical beauty of the agrarian life as well as the innumerable and wholly unpredictable dangers of the natural world. Country music trades on a community memory of a time in which families were at once fragile and dependent but also rugged and self-sufficient.
Passing silos, tractors, and farm houses, we stretched our thirty-minute return trip into forty-five. Awakening from a modern funk, it was good to be reminded visually that there were, of course, still vast expanses of land just outside my city limits. Land where real people grew food and raised livestock and faced the trials of a countryside still untamed in many ways.
And the songs about Jesus, redemption, making it through the hard times, and the hand of God in the lives of good folks kept coming.
This one is my favorite one.
This is me and grandma in the summer sun,
all dressed up the day we said our vows.
You can't tell it here, but it was hot that June,
and that rose was red, and her eyes were blue,
and just look at that smile--I was so proud.
That's the story of my life, right there in black and white.
And if it looks like we were scared to death.
like a couple of kids just trying to save each other,
you should've seen it in color.
A pictures worth a thousand words, but you can't see what those shades of gray keep covered.
You should have seen it in color.
We are a people with a tradition. We are a people of the land. We have faced hard times. We have survived hard times. The Good Lord willing, and the Creek don't rise, we will persevere through this time of difficulty.
These people of the land, "clinging to their God and their guns," are fighters. They have much to tell us. We should listen more.
For your viewing pleasure: Jamey Johnson - In Color: Video.
Its all black and white; it aint real clear; is that you there?
He said, yeah, I was eleven; times were tough back in '35.
That's me and Uncle Joe just tryin to survive a cotton farm in the Great Depression.
If it looks like we were scared to death,
like a couple of kids just trying to save each other,
you should've seen it in color.
On an unofficial den outing this afternoon, I drove my six-year-old Cub Scout (and my nine-year-old civilian) out of town to a cornfield in Central Texas. On another busy weekend in another hectic month in another insanely harried semester, honestly, I was not looking forward to this time-consuming excursion. Leaving Waco in caravan, traveling north on I-35, we exited the interstate at Elm Mott, traveling northeast on FM 308 past Leroy. A few miles short of Birome, we cut-off onto an unpaved gravel county road and proceeded to the Kaska Family Farm for some bucolic diversion.
Like many of us, I have been distracted lately. I spent the first half hour in transit rolling down the highway at 88 feet per second, listening to the final minutes of the Red River Shootout on my car radio, and generally ignoring the children inside and the changing landscape outside my air-conditioned sedan. I spent the first few minutes on the "farm" paying the price of admission, scoping out the "attractions," and surveying the lay of the land--but not really seeing, listening, or feeling.
I was stressed, depressed, and detached. So much so, in fact, that I was blind and deaf to the land. This is somewhat unusual for me. While I have absolutely no inherited skill as a farmer, I tend toward sentimentality when I traverse the byways of Central Texas. In an almost mystical way, I often hear the echoes of generations of share croppers and hard-scrabble forebears when I travel the back roads of my ancestral home.
At some point, thankfully, amazingly, on a warm fall day under a shimmering blue sky, I finally heard the rustling of corn stalks. Awakening from my stupor, I heard the soft but reassuring and immutable pastoral song of life:
This is the real world. This is the natural world. Life began here. Life is renewed here. Life is grown here.
These rolling hills will be here when the titans of Wall Street are long gone.
These are the verdant pastures that have comforted the soul of man for millennia. This natural cathedral is the antidote to the Valley of the Shadow of Death.
After taking in deep breaths of this reinvigorating and cleansing fresh air, we headed back toward town. This time, though, with our windows down and senses open to the sights and sounds and smells of the land. We did not try to connect with the interstate on the return trip. Instead, we turned left at Leroy, passing a rural cemetery and the Baptist/Methodist Church, where the sign read: "WHAT ROLE ARE YOU PLAYING IN GOD'S UNIVERSE?"
Country music is appropriate on these farm-to-market roads, as it so often celebrates the interconnectedness and fragility of the human experience.
Ohh and this one here was taken over seas,
in the middle of hell in 1943, in the winter time;
you can almost see my breath.
That was my tail gunner, ole Johnny Magee.
He was a high school teacher from New Orleans.
And he had my back, right through the day we left.
If it looks like we were scared to death,
like a couple of kids just trying to save each other,
you should've seen it in color.
A picture's worth a thousand words,
but you can't see what those shades of gray keep covered,
you should've seen it in color.
Unlike other forms of popular music, country and western presupposes a value system based on the cyclical beauty of the agrarian life as well as the innumerable and wholly unpredictable dangers of the natural world. Country music trades on a community memory of a time in which families were at once fragile and dependent but also rugged and self-sufficient.
Passing silos, tractors, and farm houses, we stretched our thirty-minute return trip into forty-five. Awakening from a modern funk, it was good to be reminded visually that there were, of course, still vast expanses of land just outside my city limits. Land where real people grew food and raised livestock and faced the trials of a countryside still untamed in many ways.
And the songs about Jesus, redemption, making it through the hard times, and the hand of God in the lives of good folks kept coming.
This one is my favorite one.
This is me and grandma in the summer sun,
all dressed up the day we said our vows.
You can't tell it here, but it was hot that June,
and that rose was red, and her eyes were blue,
and just look at that smile--I was so proud.
That's the story of my life, right there in black and white.
And if it looks like we were scared to death.
like a couple of kids just trying to save each other,
you should've seen it in color.
A pictures worth a thousand words, but you can't see what those shades of gray keep covered.
You should have seen it in color.
We are a people with a tradition. We are a people of the land. We have faced hard times. We have survived hard times. The Good Lord willing, and the Creek don't rise, we will persevere through this time of difficulty.
These people of the land, "clinging to their God and their guns," are fighters. They have much to tell us. We should listen more.
For your viewing pleasure: Jamey Johnson - In Color: Video.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Jihadwatch reminds us that October is the month in which Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeated Islamic invaders near Tours. This battle is called the Battle of Tours, or, the Battle of Poitiers.
For some time after conquering the Iberian penninsula, the Muslims had raided into Gaul, and contested Christian rule there. Finally, in 732 an army of about 80,000 led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, pushed into Gaul. Charles met them near Tours with an army about half their size. The victory by Charles Martel saved Western Europe from Islamic conquest.
So, if you prefer the Europe of cathedrals, to the averted fate of Europe with mosques, then raise a glass to The Hammer this month.
To read more, here, and here, and here is an account from an anonymour Muslim chronicler. And here excerpts from 3 medieval accounts.
For some time after conquering the Iberian penninsula, the Muslims had raided into Gaul, and contested Christian rule there. Finally, in 732 an army of about 80,000 led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, pushed into Gaul. Charles met them near Tours with an army about half their size. The victory by Charles Martel saved Western Europe from Islamic conquest.
So, if you prefer the Europe of cathedrals, to the averted fate of Europe with mosques, then raise a glass to The Hammer this month.
To read more, here, and here, and here is an account from an anonymour Muslim chronicler. And here excerpts from 3 medieval accounts.
