The Bosque Boys

For earlier posts see here.

On the way to California for our older son's wedding we visited several National Parks.

Petrified Forest National Park. Ages ago geological conditions were just right for minerals gradually to infiltrate the tissues of a forest of trees buried in the mud by a flood. Various minerals have made these fossil trees colorful, as is the Painted Desert in which they are found. The park also contains the ruins of an ancient pueblo and petraglyphs (symbols carved into stone). Worth a stop.

On the darker side, each year visitors walk away with pounds and pounds of petrified wood, even though it is illegal. Way to watch out for our grandchildren you knuckleheads.

The Grand Canyon National Park. The Canyon will not disappoint. It is as big as you expect, and even more awesome. About a mile deep and in places eighteen miles wide. A site so big that it takes stopping several times, and just looking for fifteen or twenty minutes each stop. The brain needs some time to process vastness and beauty on this scale. Believe it or not, according to the rangers, the average park visit is only two-and-a-half hours. Why? We spent only five-and-a-half hours because we needed to hit the road again. My wife and I hiked a wee bit of the trail down into the canyon and back. I think that our other senses must become involved if we are to get to know a place; we need the feel of it under our feet and to touch it and smell it.

The Canyon demands our respect. There are some railings in some places, but not everywhere. The week after we left a tourist fell to his death. I think many people are so estranged from nature that they cannot quite think of it as independently real. I wish everyone could spend considerable time out of doors, learning that our decisions and actions have consequences we must live with: go to sleep without building a fire for supper and you'll wake up cold and hungry because breakfast will take longer and there is no room service or McD's around the corner.

Death Valley National Park. We entered California from Nevada by way of Death Valley. What an aptly named place. The official high the afternoon we visited was 119 F. We got out of the car twice and walked around a bit. The hottest air temperature I hope I ever feel. Who must a Ranger p.o. in order to be assigned here?

Although large areas of the valley bottom are barren, there are plants in places. And the valley was part of the range of the Timbisha Shoshone. Living things are tough and adaptable. People as well as plants.

The Sequoia National Park. It does a person good to feel small every so often. The Grand Canyon did it with immensity, the Canyon and the Petrified Forest did it with geological time, Death Valley did it with life-threatening temperatures, and Sequoia trees do it with size and age. The largest trees in the world by volume, some of them already old when Jesus was born. We looked, hiked, and marveled in this wonderful place.

In all of the parks I heard many languages spoken by other visitors. A ranger at the Grand Canyon said that 40% of the visitors are from other countries. We have treasures in and on our land worth traveling to see from the other side of the globe. Thank God for men like Muir and Teddy Roosevelt and others who determined that parts of the American treasury would be preserved so that we and our children and our children's children could experience them.

Christianity Today has this article on ministry to/with Boomers, adults born between 1946 and 1964. These paragraphs stood out to me.

The Baby Boomers, referring to those adults that were born sometime between 1946 and 1964, is a generation unlike any other. Defined by the historical, political, economic, and social events of its youth, this cadre of aging adults may be chronologically qualified for the Seniors Ministry, but it’s fairly safe to say that they aren’t rushing to join.

Many individuals within this generation are still searching for truth, meaning, and a reason for their existence. One need not look far to find books, articles, and websites written by Boomers who are struggling with transitions into a new phase of life. It is clear that opportunities for ministry are abundant and significant.

So how do we minister to Boomers? How do we begin to break through the walls of denial, indifference, arrogance, rebellion, and fear that seem to surround this generation? How do we share Christ with a people group that is known for spiritual exploration and tolerance? How do we meet the needs of Boomers who are facing unprecedented changes? How do we break the code?

Speaking as a boomer (b.1956) it is interesting to watch the generation that sang "hope I die before I get old" getting old. Lot's of denial and redefinition of when "old" begins

The Pew Forum provides links to articles from various sources on the faith of John McCain and of Barak Obama.

The Forum also has essays on the faith of each man. Click on Religious Biography from the links above.

I am unamused by the continued presence of Lindsey Graham in the United States Senate. His latest fling, this with the "Gang of Ten" in the matter of energy policy, is a profound irritant and fundamentally damaging to the November election effort of Republicans at all levels, as the lovely Kimberly Strassel explains:

"Sen. Obama was thrilled. He quickly praised the Gang's bipartisan spirit, and warmed up to a possible compromise. Of course, he means removing even the token drilling provisions now in the bill. But he's only too happy for the focus to remain on the Gang's efforts, and in particular on the five Republicans providing his party its fig leaf."

But one must be struck by the profound and gratifying irony of a Gang of Some Number that includes the oleaginous Sen. Graham cutting the electoral legs from under the sojourning maverick senator from Arizona in his presidential campaign in the same manner as the Arizona senator and Sen. Graham and the Gang of Some Number gleefully accosted the electoral focus of the incumbent president by a similar scam in the matter of judicial confirmations.

Has this party neither a brain nor a spine?

For background information: The CIA Factbook , Britannica , The Telegraph (UK) .

I will preface what I say by acknowledging that I am far from expert in this area of the world.

It seems to me that we, The United States, have been doing the right thing up until now by not getting too involved in the fighting between Georgia and Russia. Georgia, like the former Soviet Union generally, has separatist areas that differ ethnically and linguistically from the rest of the nation. The area of South Ossetia has fought to become independent from Georgia, resulting in a cease-fire monitored by the Russians, who support South Ossetia. The Georgians were unwise to make a military push into South Ossetia since such a move had a near certainty of leading to war with Russia, something the Georgians are not, and probably never will be, ready for.

However, if the Russians push into Georgia itself, then we must act in some significant way (what way, I'm not sure of). First, it is in our interest that Russia does not try to put the old Soviet and Tsarist empires back together, crushing the recently independent nations. Second, it is in our interest that the oil pipeline through Georgia does not come under Russian control. In addition to their own large reserves, if Russia controls this pipeline it will control the flow of oil from near the Caspian Sea to the West and be better able to exert pressure on the West. Third, Georgia is our ally, fighting beside us in Iraq. Our militaries have conducted joint training together in Georgia and in the Black Sea. It is in our interest to maintain credibility with allies current or potential in dangerous regions of the world.

May God bless our nation's leaders with wisdom and courage.

What to say about John Edwards?

I have never been an fan. Reviewing my previous posts concerning his candidacy, I cannot find anything positive I have written about him. By contrast, I have praised Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama generously from time to time, finding many things to admire about them over the course of the last two years. But I have consistently viewed and described Edwards as a charlatan and a coxcomb.

So, having said that, here goes some analysis regarding this latest Edwards melodrama from an extremely skeptical (perhaps even cynical) and certainly unfriendly source:

1. Some pearls of wisdom from an unlikely poet: Taylor Swift. In general, I am a cautiously optimistic admirer of hers--although I too often find myself feeling like I am intruding on some high school girl's junior-year diary. No matter, her response to infidelity in her current hit, "Should've Said No," is one of the most succinct and astute reactions to romantic betrayal in eons.

You should've said no,
You should've gone home,
You should have thought twice before you let it all go.
You should've known that word 'bout what you did with her'd, get back to me.

And I should've been there, in the back of your mind,
Shouldn't be asking myself why,
You shouldn't be begging for forgiveness at my feet,
You should've said no
Baby and you might still have me.

Nothing more to say. Think Elizabeth Edwards right now. Although, I have to wonder: why does a woman rich and powerful in her own right, stay with a womanizing weasel like John Edwards for three decades? Love is blind?

2. Scandal and Politics. Perhaps you think infidelity is a major character flaw. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you think unfaithfulness within a marriage is a private matter irrelevant to the career of a public man. Perhaps you find such behavior indicative of a general pattern of behavior.

An Aside: for all of my currently smiling and clucking Republican friends, who will argue that this revelation is proof that John Edwards is a scoundrel only the Democratic Party could love, I offer this thought experiment:

What if the New York Times, during the third week of October 2008, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that John McCain has engaged in serial adultery? Will you then concede the election to the morally upright Barack Obama out of principle?

An Aside within an aside: I say “out of principle” because if that happens (and I am about 65 percent sure that it will), speaking in practical terms, we will in effect concede the election to Barack Obama.

Ironically, this unraveling Edwards sex scandal paves the way for a more vigorous investigation of the allegations against McCain. No conspiracy here--but this is the fickle finger of fate emerging once again to pile one more pound of handicap on the seventy-two year-old senator trying to ascend the greasy pole.

But, let us return to the current scandal: what has always turned my stomach about Edwards is his egregious willingness to lie and posture in pursuit of ambition.

He wanted to be president, so he voted for the Iraq War. He still wanted to be president, so he rushed to be the first candidate to admit that his pro-war vote had been a mistake. He wanted to be president, so he said he really cared about the poor and worried about "Two Americas." He wanted to be president, so he continued to campaign for president even after his wife was diagnosed with cancer (telling the world that continuing was all her idea). He wanted to be president, so he told people how much he adored her (even as he humiliated her).

I never trusted the SOB.

When on the Zuni reservation we visited a couple of shops featuring artwork by Zuni and other Native American artists. (Zuni have a tradition of fine jewelry work.) Both shops were run by men with accents perhaps from Lebanon. We purchased a Navajo pot, and a Zuni painting. We also purchased pendants and a fetish from individual artists who approached us while on the reservation.

In Flagstaff the motel owner was European, Polish I think. In Concord the motel manager/or owner may have been Arminian. The night clerk was Afghani. In Albuquerque, Southeast Asian, perhaps Laotian. I don't know how many convenience stores/gas stations on our trip were run by Pakistanis or Indians, including one by turbaned Sikhs.

Legal immigrants bring renewed energy and ambition to America. They are a blessing. If we ever shut our doors we will be the losers.

But, as I've argued before, a nation can accept only a limited number of immigrants per year, and maintain the culture that attracted immigration in the first place.

As usualy in politics, people shout slogans designed to cloud the issue. Those of us who want to secure our borders and regulate immigration are called "anti-immigrant." Horsefeathers. I am pro-legal immigrant, and anti-illegal immigrant.

"Give us your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." But at a rate we can assimilate.

Previous On the Road posts: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4.

This story from the NYT reminds us again of the violence between Muslims and Hindus in India. At issue is a Hindu shrine in Kashmir and control of 98 acres the Kashmiri government wants to turn over to the panel overseeing the shrine to build shelters for pilgrims. Local Muslims are protesting violently.

For those with historical knowledge, Muslim outrage is ironic, since Muslim conquests have always involved destruction or takeover of the religious sites of the conquered peoples.

Driving from Oklahoma to California we usually could pick up at least one Spanish-language radio station on either AM or FM. Advocates for a bi-lingual America, that we all speak both languages, would seem on first glance to make a strong case. Canada has two official languages and appears to get along just fine.

But once we were into California, well, at least out of the Mojave Desert, then the airwaves grew more complicated. For a while north of Fresno I listened to a Hmong-language station. When the carload grew tired of that, I found a Chinese-language station. Close to the Bay area I came across two more stations in languages I did not recognize with certainty, though I think one was Vietnamese. Oh, and I forgot to mention that between Gallup and Flagstaff we listened for a time to a Navajo-language station.

America has too many languages spoken for us to become a bi-lingual nation. Why should Spanish be privilaged above Hmong, or Navajo? Because there are more Spanish speakers than Chinese? By that logic we would stick with English.

The United States needs one language we all can speak and read for our common life. In the homes, and on radio, we can have our other tongues. But to be a nation, a people, we must be able to communicate; we must have a common culture in which we can meet outside our own neighborhoods. English it is.

So argues Ryan Anderson in the latest First Things. Worth reading and reflecting on.

For my own position see this post and its links.

I don't think a Protestant embrace of Natural Law reasoning is as simple for Protestants as Anderson asserts. Note that he quotes only Martin Luther King, Jr. as his example of a Protestant using natural law argument (indirectly, at best, since King is quoting Augustine and Aquinas). The Lutheran and Reformed traditions have had some serious suspicions about the ability of human reason to know God's will apart from revelation. Anabaptist groups are not that interested, historically, in convincing the larger culture of anything by argument. And American evangelicals, generally speaking, have little experience in laying out a vision for the good life, individually and socially, without quoting Scripture.