Two recent media items caught my attention as prime examples of the willful ignorance that seems to pervade our culture. There seems to be a toiling, sweating, grunting, fighting effort to ignore traditional rational human thought. Day by day, the modern atheists walk around, seeking truths to turn on their heads, like so many stones.
First, there is the case of the Maine Middle School that has garnered national attention by approving a plan to allow birth control to be provided free of charge by medical personnel to students. The specific mode of the contraceptive is “the pill.” Further oddity – the school physicians authorized to distribute this pill are not required – nay, not authorized – to inform the parents of the 11-to-13-year old child, and hence, the child’s regular physician may never know that his patient is being medicated.
Forget, for a moment, the obvious medical wisdom issues at stake, such as the one above, and the fact that there is robust evidence that prolonged use of the pill is, if not dangerous, at least possibly detrimental to the overall health of a woman – so let’s start them on it at the age of 11.
Forget, if you must, that there is no legal way that an 11 or 13 year old can engage in sexual intercourse that I am aware of. At least, there is no one who can legally engage in intercourse with a child of that age.
One of the main proponents of this measure said the following (my paraphrase): “We can keep our heads in the sand about whether or not these young people are having sex, or we can do something to decrease the instances of teen pregnancy.” No one bothers to put any serious energy into stopping the culture of sexual immorality. We just hide (or kill) the “symptoms.” The institutions of sexual license and death – and do not presume that to be a hyperbolic epithet – such as Planned Parenthood continue to peddle their wares.
The second instance is that of a proposed plan (and I do not remember the location) in a U.S. hospital, pending probable court approval, to have a druggie “safe room.” This concept is already in practice in parts of Canada. The idea is that heroin addicts can come to the free clinic, (BYODrugs), and shoot up in the presence and supervision of a nurse, who can monitor the needle stick, and the dosage used.
The justification? This will prevent dozens of unnecessary drug overdose deaths.
Both issues use the “women-will-seek-an-abortion-anyway” justification.
These issues are not worth argument, not at all. There is no need to pick them apart. I feel as though our society is sinking further and further into this weird mire, and I find myself dissecting issues, coming up with arguments against certain things, until I realize exactly what I am trying to argue against.
And with that realization, I increasingly wonder why anyone should ever have to make this argument at all.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Beer Reviews
Last night I splurged a little and got two four-packs of beer that was supposed to be extraordinary.
First, there was the Wexford Irish Cream Ale (in a can). Not a particularly bad mug of beer, but it seemed to be nothing more than an uneventful coffee stout with a fairly good head. The flavor was bitter, but not smooth or intense. It did look nice, when poured down the side of a mug -- it looked like creamy coffee, until I realized that was millions of tiny bubbles, which took 3 whole minutes to form the inch-thick head, leaving a deep amber beer beneath. But overall, it was a disappointment, especially for the $7.99 paid for a four-pack. I won't buy again.
Second, there was the Dogfish Head Midas Touch. The recipe is supposedly based on the chemical residue found in vats in the tomb of an ancient Turkish king, perhaps the man behind the Midas legend. At any rate, it's not fit for king or peasant. I should not have paid $11.99 for four of these. I would not pay $.99 for ten of these! It's supposed to be a unique creation, blending malted barley with Muscat grapes, honey and saffron. I am not averse to sweet beers, but the taste is best described as what one would achieve mixing some cheap malt beer with concorde grape juice. It was horrible. And I consider myselve blessed that two of the four beers broke on the ground as I carried them inside.
First, there was the Wexford Irish Cream Ale (in a can). Not a particularly bad mug of beer, but it seemed to be nothing more than an uneventful coffee stout with a fairly good head. The flavor was bitter, but not smooth or intense. It did look nice, when poured down the side of a mug -- it looked like creamy coffee, until I realized that was millions of tiny bubbles, which took 3 whole minutes to form the inch-thick head, leaving a deep amber beer beneath. But overall, it was a disappointment, especially for the $7.99 paid for a four-pack. I won't buy again.
Second, there was the Dogfish Head Midas Touch. The recipe is supposedly based on the chemical residue found in vats in the tomb of an ancient Turkish king, perhaps the man behind the Midas legend. At any rate, it's not fit for king or peasant. I should not have paid $11.99 for four of these. I would not pay $.99 for ten of these! It's supposed to be a unique creation, blending malted barley with Muscat grapes, honey and saffron. I am not averse to sweet beers, but the taste is best described as what one would achieve mixing some cheap malt beer with concorde grape juice. It was horrible. And I consider myselve blessed that two of the four beers broke on the ground as I carried them inside.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Important Business of Government
I find two recent declarations of Congress, both of which have received loads of media attention, to be not only ridiculous, but distressing.
The first declaration was one strongly condemning the ad taken out in the NYTimes by MoveOn.org featuring the now infamous statement "General Petraeus or General Betray-Us?" The second declaration, not yet passed, condemns remarks by Rush Limbaugh in which he used the descriptive "Phony Soldiers," apparently meaning to describe soldiers who lie about having been in combat in an effort to discredit the war.
Without significant comment on the incidents (I think the one comment by MoveOn was very stupid and wrong, and the comment by Rush was pretty stupid, but probably right), one concerns me is this: as the nation is in two agressive wars, faces a possible economic crisis, has no long term budget plans passed, etc., our glorious legislative body -- which keeps trying to convince us of how important they are -- concerns themselves with condemning the statements of private U.S. Citizens or Corporations, purely for political capital.
Yes -- both resolutions are equally bad. I understand one of them, supporting a senior military commander, has more merit, but both are bad government business. Even if we stop short of saying that this kind of government condemnation of the free speech of individuals strikes close to the heart of what this nation was founded to prevent -- the unnecessary intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens -- we can still say that it only discredits the Congress, if it has nothing better to discuss.
The first declaration was one strongly condemning the ad taken out in the NYTimes by MoveOn.org featuring the now infamous statement "General Petraeus or General Betray-Us?" The second declaration, not yet passed, condemns remarks by Rush Limbaugh in which he used the descriptive "Phony Soldiers," apparently meaning to describe soldiers who lie about having been in combat in an effort to discredit the war.
Without significant comment on the incidents (I think the one comment by MoveOn was very stupid and wrong, and the comment by Rush was pretty stupid, but probably right), one concerns me is this: as the nation is in two agressive wars, faces a possible economic crisis, has no long term budget plans passed, etc., our glorious legislative body -- which keeps trying to convince us of how important they are -- concerns themselves with condemning the statements of private U.S. Citizens or Corporations, purely for political capital.
Yes -- both resolutions are equally bad. I understand one of them, supporting a senior military commander, has more merit, but both are bad government business. Even if we stop short of saying that this kind of government condemnation of the free speech of individuals strikes close to the heart of what this nation was founded to prevent -- the unnecessary intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens -- we can still say that it only discredits the Congress, if it has nothing better to discuss.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Babette's Feast
Last night we watched Babette's Feast again -- it's been probably 8 years since I've seen it. What a lovely film. I was particularly struck by the words of the ederly General Lorens Lowenhielm as he stands following the meal. It is a beautiful thought:
"Mercy and truth have met together. Righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Man, in his weakness and shortsightedness believes he must make choices in this life. He trembles at the risks he takes. We do know fear. But no. Our choice is of no importance. There comes a time when our eyes are opened and we come to realize that mercy is infinite. We need only await it with confidence and receive it with gratitude. Mercy imposes no conditions. And lo! Everything we have chosen has been granted to us. And everything we rejected has also been granted. Yes, we even get back what we rejected. For mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another."
"Mercy and truth have met together. Righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Man, in his weakness and shortsightedness believes he must make choices in this life. He trembles at the risks he takes. We do know fear. But no. Our choice is of no importance. There comes a time when our eyes are opened and we come to realize that mercy is infinite. We need only await it with confidence and receive it with gratitude. Mercy imposes no conditions. And lo! Everything we have chosen has been granted to us. And everything we rejected has also been granted. Yes, we even get back what we rejected. For mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another."
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Most Dangerous Man in Politics
I will take anyone 10-1 odds that Elliot Spitzer will run for president (and probably be elected) in 2012 if a Republican or an unpopular Democrat is elected in 2008, and in 2016 either way.
He'll also be a major contender for Clinton's Veep, for sure.
He's not a good man for the job. But he's one of the most deft, powerful, and sharp men in politics, with a shrewd outlook. He's a shark, most certainly.
He'll also be a major contender for Clinton's Veep, for sure.
He's not a good man for the job. But he's one of the most deft, powerful, and sharp men in politics, with a shrewd outlook. He's a shark, most certainly.
Death and . . .
I was listening to NPR, which was offering a special discussion of tax reform, and possible plans for re-hauling the progressive income tax system. Most especially discussed was the fair tax plan, specifically the National Sales Tax -- a broader-based consumption tax of all products, including consumer goods, health care, and real estate -- which would be a lead to a 25%-38% tax rate, creating a mid-40% markup on products.
I am no economist in the remotest sense, but the NST seems to me to be an exercise in the typical political game of false advertising. Everyone on the political spectrum is guilty of this when it comes to taxes -- proposing a system that sounds fair, even though anyone seriously considering this knows that it would be unbearable to the economy and impossible to enforce. Such a thing would be possible if it grew organically with a society, but simply applying it one day to the world's most complex economic player is ludicrous.
Certainly, though, some kind of flat tax -- however it is managed -- could be applied to replace our progressive tax. But, like it or not, we are going to have to remain income-based. The question of whether or not to tax income or consumption is much less significant than the issue of progressive tax (besides the fact that most people seem confused as to which -- taxing income and investment, or taxing consumption -- most stimulates capitalistic growth).
The progressive system strikes at the heart of democratic principles -- taxation and representation. When combining that revenue system with the government who spends that revenue, we have something akin to 9 Nazis and 1 Jew developing a racial policy. We have 80% of the voters getting to determine what to do with the 20% group's money. It's not hard to see where that's going to go. And in the midst of it all, the 80% claims that they have it hard.
Progressive tax stifles incentives for the lower and middle classes, while creating the largest burdens on the biggest capital contributions to the whole economy. So the worst and most putrid limbs of capitalism -- consumerism -- are still fed, and the roots -- entrepreneurialism and growth -- are continually being hacked off short.
I am no economist in the remotest sense, but the NST seems to me to be an exercise in the typical political game of false advertising. Everyone on the political spectrum is guilty of this when it comes to taxes -- proposing a system that sounds fair, even though anyone seriously considering this knows that it would be unbearable to the economy and impossible to enforce. Such a thing would be possible if it grew organically with a society, but simply applying it one day to the world's most complex economic player is ludicrous.
Certainly, though, some kind of flat tax -- however it is managed -- could be applied to replace our progressive tax. But, like it or not, we are going to have to remain income-based. The question of whether or not to tax income or consumption is much less significant than the issue of progressive tax (besides the fact that most people seem confused as to which -- taxing income and investment, or taxing consumption -- most stimulates capitalistic growth).
The progressive system strikes at the heart of democratic principles -- taxation and representation. When combining that revenue system with the government who spends that revenue, we have something akin to 9 Nazis and 1 Jew developing a racial policy. We have 80% of the voters getting to determine what to do with the 20% group's money. It's not hard to see where that's going to go. And in the midst of it all, the 80% claims that they have it hard.
Progressive tax stifles incentives for the lower and middle classes, while creating the largest burdens on the biggest capital contributions to the whole economy. So the worst and most putrid limbs of capitalism -- consumerism -- are still fed, and the roots -- entrepreneurialism and growth -- are continually being hacked off short.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Better is Beer, if Drink We Lack
Ten Beers Most Excellent.
1. Chimay Grande Reserve (Bleue): My favorite beer of all -- a Belgian abbey ale, brown, thick, creamy, with a bitter yeast and a good mouth of hops, but supremely well balanced with malts. -- I like at room temperature. 9% abv
2. Gulden Draak: a lovely, lovely spiced triple ale, rich amber or copper, very rich, full malts, very light hoppiness. The edge is more spice than yeast, and the beer is full of caramel and is sweet like honey. -- I like cold. 10.5% abv
3. Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout: opaqe, black, full, but not bitter. Deep roasted malts are more coffee than chocolate. Excellent rich beer that even a beginner can enjoy. -- Cold or room temperature. 9% abv
4. Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout: a great example of a stout that could be an Irish stout if it had come from the green Isle. Rich, fruity, hoppy, complex, with a lot of burnt malt flavor. The beer has a small head that is dense and sweet. -- I like this one room temperature. 10.6% abv.
5. Old Peculiar Theakston Ale: A rich, malty, sweet beer that is light on both yeast and hops, giving it a honey-like taste that is broadly masked by the powerful black chocolate of the malt. -- Room temperature. 5.6% abv.
6. Samuel Smith Brewery Taddy Porter: this really should be called a stout, since it can stand up to almost any stout out there. The malt is so dark and burnt that the coffee flavors ferment to a wickedly bitter finish that is only for the ambitious beer-lover. Only a touch of hops blend with the yeasty mouth. Not a complex beer, but certainly a rich one. -- Cooler temperatures help even out the dense coffee flavor. 5% abv.
7. Sam Adams Pale Ale: A light, golden, almost orange beer that is one of the tastiest hop-heavy beers I've ever had. It's fruit, citrus, and herbs all pop out of the creamy beer without souring the tongue, and the malt -- almost undetectable -- just barely smooths the edges. The perfect pale ale. -- Nice and cold. 5.25% abv.
8. Fat Tire: A Belgian-style amber ale that has a brilliant balance of malt and hops, with no sourness from the ale yeast. The mouth is dry and has flavors of toast and biscuit from the malt, with plenty of herbs from the hops. A great evening beer. -- slightly chilled. 5.2% abv.
9. Sam Adams Black Lager: another success from Sam Adams -- deep mahogany, with a rich and creamy flavor that lacks any serious bitterness, but is rich in dark fruits, roasted nuts, and fresh bread. Figs, toast, and spices are especially prominant. -- slightly chilled. 4.9% abv.
10. Rolling Rock: a delightful, inexpensive, and traditional pilsner-style pale lager, tasty enough for the veteran, mild enough for the newbie. Some drinkers say it tastes like nothing, but it does have a very mild but complex hoppy edge. The perfect "cool-down" beer -- easy to drink and fun. -- Ice cold. 4.6% abv.
1. Chimay Grande Reserve (Bleue): My favorite beer of all -- a Belgian abbey ale, brown, thick, creamy, with a bitter yeast and a good mouth of hops, but supremely well balanced with malts. -- I like at room temperature. 9% abv
2. Gulden Draak: a lovely, lovely spiced triple ale, rich amber or copper, very rich, full malts, very light hoppiness. The edge is more spice than yeast, and the beer is full of caramel and is sweet like honey. -- I like cold. 10.5% abv
3. Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout: opaqe, black, full, but not bitter. Deep roasted malts are more coffee than chocolate. Excellent rich beer that even a beginner can enjoy. -- Cold or room temperature. 9% abv
4. Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout: a great example of a stout that could be an Irish stout if it had come from the green Isle. Rich, fruity, hoppy, complex, with a lot of burnt malt flavor. The beer has a small head that is dense and sweet. -- I like this one room temperature. 10.6% abv.
5. Old Peculiar Theakston Ale: A rich, malty, sweet beer that is light on both yeast and hops, giving it a honey-like taste that is broadly masked by the powerful black chocolate of the malt. -- Room temperature. 5.6% abv.
6. Samuel Smith Brewery Taddy Porter: this really should be called a stout, since it can stand up to almost any stout out there. The malt is so dark and burnt that the coffee flavors ferment to a wickedly bitter finish that is only for the ambitious beer-lover. Only a touch of hops blend with the yeasty mouth. Not a complex beer, but certainly a rich one. -- Cooler temperatures help even out the dense coffee flavor. 5% abv.
7. Sam Adams Pale Ale: A light, golden, almost orange beer that is one of the tastiest hop-heavy beers I've ever had. It's fruit, citrus, and herbs all pop out of the creamy beer without souring the tongue, and the malt -- almost undetectable -- just barely smooths the edges. The perfect pale ale. -- Nice and cold. 5.25% abv.
8. Fat Tire: A Belgian-style amber ale that has a brilliant balance of malt and hops, with no sourness from the ale yeast. The mouth is dry and has flavors of toast and biscuit from the malt, with plenty of herbs from the hops. A great evening beer. -- slightly chilled. 5.2% abv.
9. Sam Adams Black Lager: another success from Sam Adams -- deep mahogany, with a rich and creamy flavor that lacks any serious bitterness, but is rich in dark fruits, roasted nuts, and fresh bread. Figs, toast, and spices are especially prominant. -- slightly chilled. 4.9% abv.
10. Rolling Rock: a delightful, inexpensive, and traditional pilsner-style pale lager, tasty enough for the veteran, mild enough for the newbie. Some drinkers say it tastes like nothing, but it does have a very mild but complex hoppy edge. The perfect "cool-down" beer -- easy to drink and fun. -- Ice cold. 4.6% abv.
A Pernicious Government
One of the most horrible things about the current state of Iraq is not that the country is in chaos or that its cities and society have become flotsam. While there are many problems, I am very optimistic that things, slowly and surely, are turning the right way -- economically, socially, and in regards to peace in the streets.
This is not so much the case with the Iraqi body politic, and there are still lingering problems in Iraqi society at large. Those in society at large are indisputably the result of the rottenness of vitriolic Islam, especially spread by fear. In the government, it is a result of the same, even more lethally combined with corruption and self-preservation at all costs.
The reticence and nescience of this government are often used as a rationale and justification for our withdrawl from Iraq -- an argument that makes no sense at all if we want to preserve any kind of international position of strength, or if we want to prevent the nation of Iraq from sinking to a blood bath, only to be rescued and brought to order by the most radical, violent, and anti-Western factions of Shi'aism. But it cannot either be denied that it seems absurd to continue to sacrifice our money and lives for a government that is so brutish, selfish, truculent, and apathetic to our situation and the situation of it's people.
Two major incidents this week bring this home to me: the audacity of the Iraqi government in response to the Blackwater "shooting," and the absurdity of Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, in his demands for the release of an Iranian commando and spy.
Certainly, there are reasons to investigate the Blackwater incident, but it seems that perhaps if the Iraq government -- instead of simply rewriting intellectual property rights and taking vacations -- focused the same energy on stamping out the bloodthirsty insurgents that they spend trying to stamp out Americans who are attacked on that street every day, then this issue would never have arisen in the first place. In spite of the mercenary actions, and ocassionally behavior, of the Blackwater troops, I am far more inclined to suspect that they were actually fighting a vicious enemy, rather than blasting away at passers-by for fun. And it would not surprise me if Iraqis and their government are perfectly prepared to lie through their teeth about the incident.
The question of the Iranian commando is even more ridiculous. Jalal Talabani demanded the immediate release of an Iranian agent, responsible for the delivery of arms, explosives, and training to Iraqi rebels, calling him -- amazingly -- "our civilian guest." And this was a commando -- a member of the insidious and violent "Qods Force" -- who was apparently captured while training Iraqis to murder their own countrymen and Americans.
So what to do about this tough situation? It seems pulling out isn't the right thing to do, but staying in and bleeding little-by-little seems cheap. The Iraqis are showing themselves not worth the blood we spend, and it almost begins to look attractive to leave them to their deaths. But we have been light-handed, erring on the side of the greatest economy of force from the beginning, and time and time again it has cost us. Making ourselves "backup" for the Iraqis doesn't work. It doesn't make sense to say "well, you're problem now" when they cannot begin to address their own degraded and depraved practice governance.
We need to step in without gloves, and take back control. We need to cause some serious trouble in Iraq, and make sure that they understand we will arrest whomever we please, and if we are attacked, we will definitely be shooting back. This sounds brutish to Western ears, but it is neither immoral, unwise, or unjust in this situation, and it is the only thing this society would understand clearly. And if properly combined with a continued flow of aid, reconstruction, etc., would hopefully cause progress to leap forward.
This is not so much the case with the Iraqi body politic, and there are still lingering problems in Iraqi society at large. Those in society at large are indisputably the result of the rottenness of vitriolic Islam, especially spread by fear. In the government, it is a result of the same, even more lethally combined with corruption and self-preservation at all costs.
The reticence and nescience of this government are often used as a rationale and justification for our withdrawl from Iraq -- an argument that makes no sense at all if we want to preserve any kind of international position of strength, or if we want to prevent the nation of Iraq from sinking to a blood bath, only to be rescued and brought to order by the most radical, violent, and anti-Western factions of Shi'aism. But it cannot either be denied that it seems absurd to continue to sacrifice our money and lives for a government that is so brutish, selfish, truculent, and apathetic to our situation and the situation of it's people.
Two major incidents this week bring this home to me: the audacity of the Iraqi government in response to the Blackwater "shooting," and the absurdity of Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, in his demands for the release of an Iranian commando and spy.
Certainly, there are reasons to investigate the Blackwater incident, but it seems that perhaps if the Iraq government -- instead of simply rewriting intellectual property rights and taking vacations -- focused the same energy on stamping out the bloodthirsty insurgents that they spend trying to stamp out Americans who are attacked on that street every day, then this issue would never have arisen in the first place. In spite of the mercenary actions, and ocassionally behavior, of the Blackwater troops, I am far more inclined to suspect that they were actually fighting a vicious enemy, rather than blasting away at passers-by for fun. And it would not surprise me if Iraqis and their government are perfectly prepared to lie through their teeth about the incident.
The question of the Iranian commando is even more ridiculous. Jalal Talabani demanded the immediate release of an Iranian agent, responsible for the delivery of arms, explosives, and training to Iraqi rebels, calling him -- amazingly -- "our civilian guest." And this was a commando -- a member of the insidious and violent "Qods Force" -- who was apparently captured while training Iraqis to murder their own countrymen and Americans.
So what to do about this tough situation? It seems pulling out isn't the right thing to do, but staying in and bleeding little-by-little seems cheap. The Iraqis are showing themselves not worth the blood we spend, and it almost begins to look attractive to leave them to their deaths. But we have been light-handed, erring on the side of the greatest economy of force from the beginning, and time and time again it has cost us. Making ourselves "backup" for the Iraqis doesn't work. It doesn't make sense to say "well, you're problem now" when they cannot begin to address their own degraded and depraved practice governance.
We need to step in without gloves, and take back control. We need to cause some serious trouble in Iraq, and make sure that they understand we will arrest whomever we please, and if we are attacked, we will definitely be shooting back. This sounds brutish to Western ears, but it is neither immoral, unwise, or unjust in this situation, and it is the only thing this society would understand clearly. And if properly combined with a continued flow of aid, reconstruction, etc., would hopefully cause progress to leap forward.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Knee Bone Connected...
I love types.
I was reading Ezekiel this morning and read over one of my favorite chapters in the prophets: Ezekiel 37. One thing that particularly struck me in this reading is how the miracle of the dry bones is a glorious Old Testament type, and really shows the beauty of how Incarnation and Resurrection are connected.
When Ezekiel speaks the prophesies of the Lord to the bones, they come together, bone to bone, and are wrapped in sinews and flesh. Then Ezekiel speaks a prophesy to the wind, and it fills the bodies with breath and life. Ezekiel 37 : 13 -- "Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up from your graves."
The miracle is incarnation -- literally. It is the "en-flesh-ment" of dead dry bones. And the incarnation is simultaneously, or subsequently, perhaps, resurrection -- the dead are raised from the grave.
The Incarnation of Christ is a glorious fulfillment of this type. Even as the dry bones were wrapped in flesh and given new life, the act of Christ's incarnation in human flesh makes us incarnate in spirit. Through His incarnation, binding God and Man, the dry bones of our sinful and corruptable humanity are wrapped in sinless and eternal flesh. And thus His incarnation (and death, buriel and resurrection), enables our eternal resurrection.
I was reading Ezekiel this morning and read over one of my favorite chapters in the prophets: Ezekiel 37. One thing that particularly struck me in this reading is how the miracle of the dry bones is a glorious Old Testament type, and really shows the beauty of how Incarnation and Resurrection are connected.
When Ezekiel speaks the prophesies of the Lord to the bones, they come together, bone to bone, and are wrapped in sinews and flesh. Then Ezekiel speaks a prophesy to the wind, and it fills the bodies with breath and life. Ezekiel 37 : 13 -- "Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up from your graves."
The miracle is incarnation -- literally. It is the "en-flesh-ment" of dead dry bones. And the incarnation is simultaneously, or subsequently, perhaps, resurrection -- the dead are raised from the grave.
The Incarnation of Christ is a glorious fulfillment of this type. Even as the dry bones were wrapped in flesh and given new life, the act of Christ's incarnation in human flesh makes us incarnate in spirit. Through His incarnation, binding God and Man, the dry bones of our sinful and corruptable humanity are wrapped in sinless and eternal flesh. And thus His incarnation (and death, buriel and resurrection), enables our eternal resurrection.
Sipping Syrah with a Straw
So I have not posted anything at all in a long time. I have really slacked off. The last ten days are excusable, but since I'm averaging two posts a month, I must hang my head in shame.
The surgery went very well, as many of my beloved readers know (Hi, Mom!). It's embarassing to have to sip wine with a straw, though.
The surgery went very well, as many of my beloved readers know (Hi, Mom!). It's embarassing to have to sip wine with a straw, though.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Somebody Say Somethin' About Cheese??
Best Kinds of Cheese in the World --
1. Blue Wensleydale -- sharp, bitter, cheddary white cheese with lovely blue marbling. It's like a less creamy gorgonzola. Very crumbly. Best part is, Bekah doesn't like it. All mine.
2. Saint Andre's -- Close to indescribable. It's label has created it's own variety of cheese. It's a creamy, fragrant cheese whose texture varies from soft, like Camabert, to semi-hard, like most blue. It's like Brie-flavored butter, but the flavor, while not bitter or overpowering, is more pronounced than most bries I've had.
3. La Gruyere -- An excellent French cheese, and nothing really needs to be said, since everyone knows about it. Excellent in melting, baking, or any application. A unique and classic flavor that even the most ardent opponent of Swiss cannot resist.
4. Danish Havarti -- A very smooth and very sweet cheese that is springy and pourous, and has a classic flavor that can accompany strong foods and spirits or sweet fruits and desserts.
5. Vermont White Cheddar -- Cheddar is the world's most consumed cheese, and everyone is familiar with it...but usually in the mass-market variety. The best of Vermont cheddars, especially uncolored types, is on a par with the best of hard French and Italian cheeses, carrying the finest flavors of Asiago, Parmesan, and various blue cheeses.
1. Blue Wensleydale -- sharp, bitter, cheddary white cheese with lovely blue marbling. It's like a less creamy gorgonzola. Very crumbly. Best part is, Bekah doesn't like it. All mine.
2. Saint Andre's -- Close to indescribable. It's label has created it's own variety of cheese. It's a creamy, fragrant cheese whose texture varies from soft, like Camabert, to semi-hard, like most blue. It's like Brie-flavored butter, but the flavor, while not bitter or overpowering, is more pronounced than most bries I've had.
3. La Gruyere -- An excellent French cheese, and nothing really needs to be said, since everyone knows about it. Excellent in melting, baking, or any application. A unique and classic flavor that even the most ardent opponent of Swiss cannot resist.
4. Danish Havarti -- A very smooth and very sweet cheese that is springy and pourous, and has a classic flavor that can accompany strong foods and spirits or sweet fruits and desserts.
5. Vermont White Cheddar -- Cheddar is the world's most consumed cheese, and everyone is familiar with it...but usually in the mass-market variety. The best of Vermont cheddars, especially uncolored types, is on a par with the best of hard French and Italian cheeses, carrying the finest flavors of Asiago, Parmesan, and various blue cheeses.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Chill
Well, at any rate, it does help to exercise, eat right, etc. Those things are vital. But it all doesn't matter if you turn up 40 gigawatts of stress. The ticker's still going to blow.
Red wine is great, because it helps with the health and the stress. Booyah.
Red wine is great, because it helps with the health and the stress. Booyah.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Places I Want to Go
New Zealand. No further comment is needed.
Hokkaido, Japan. Fascinating place.
Hokkaido, Japan. Fascinating place.
Tripoli, Libya -- the city known as the White Bride, whose buildings are often made from sand that is almost pure white.
Spain.
Argentina. And they make great wine too.
Malta. I think actually I will live here.
Denmark.
The Hindu Kush mountains in high central asia, where the average altitude often exceeds 16,000 feet. This is Tirich Mir, just about 7,000 meters. This part of the world seems so mysterious and strange to me, and is probably as remote a place as can be still found in the world. This particular peak is in north Pakistan, near the narrow pass in the corridor of land in north Afghanistan that stretches to China. This region begins in northern Afghanistan, and the range of mountains extrends through Pakistan and joins other ranges, including the rough terrain of Uzbekstan, Kyrgistan, and into the Himalayas of China and the high plateaus of Tibet.
Spain.
Argentina. And they make great wine too.
Malta. I think actually I will live here.
Denmark.
The Hindu Kush mountains in high central asia, where the average altitude often exceeds 16,000 feet. This is Tirich Mir, just about 7,000 meters. This part of the world seems so mysterious and strange to me, and is probably as remote a place as can be still found in the world. This particular peak is in north Pakistan, near the narrow pass in the corridor of land in north Afghanistan that stretches to China. This region begins in northern Afghanistan, and the range of mountains extrends through Pakistan and joins other ranges, including the rough terrain of Uzbekstan, Kyrgistan, and into the Himalayas of China and the high plateaus of Tibet.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Bush Hates Kids
Part of selling an agenda, like it or not, is creating a dichotomy -- there are two choices, this and anti-this.
While I think, more than most people, that this habit has a lot of good in it, it can be greatly abused. One good example is a claim that some more virulent conservatives propagate. If you aren't pro-Iraq War, you're anti-U.S., or anti-troops.
While I think that many of those who are against the war are at least subconsciously feeding the latter two camps, it remains a terrible false dichotomy, and is a discredit to those who claim it.
But two of the best examples come to mind recently. One is the issue of the environment, and the other is health care. Let's keep it simple. Liberals love the earth, conservatives hate it. For whatever reason, they sit in their leather chairs and like to think about how to destroy it to get more money.
Likewise, the nation's governors are meeting to oppose Bush's threatened Veto of any measure that will reinstate a controversial child health care program, which amounts to free nationwide health care for children. On the one hand, the liberals want to care for innocent, unprotected children. On the other hand, conservatives would rather see those children die of cancer while they line the pockets of the HMOs.
But stop for a moment, and ask if this is really reasonable. Perhaps the throbbing question that underlies these "heartless" decisions is really coming from the caring side -- how will we pay for it?
While the opponents of these measures continue to look like villains, they are really being the most compassionate leaders, understanding that there are no easy solutions, and that the people must be protected from an increasingly ravenous government.
The other side practices the worst kind of bribery, cleverly disguised as a largess -- handing out popular measures knowing full well that they cannot stand under the budgets of tomorrow, unless the government taxes and swells, taxes and swells. So as they toss those few coins to the people, remember that the people will be paying tribute long after all the pennies have been used.
While I think, more than most people, that this habit has a lot of good in it, it can be greatly abused. One good example is a claim that some more virulent conservatives propagate. If you aren't pro-Iraq War, you're anti-U.S., or anti-troops.
While I think that many of those who are against the war are at least subconsciously feeding the latter two camps, it remains a terrible false dichotomy, and is a discredit to those who claim it.
But two of the best examples come to mind recently. One is the issue of the environment, and the other is health care. Let's keep it simple. Liberals love the earth, conservatives hate it. For whatever reason, they sit in their leather chairs and like to think about how to destroy it to get more money.
Likewise, the nation's governors are meeting to oppose Bush's threatened Veto of any measure that will reinstate a controversial child health care program, which amounts to free nationwide health care for children. On the one hand, the liberals want to care for innocent, unprotected children. On the other hand, conservatives would rather see those children die of cancer while they line the pockets of the HMOs.
But stop for a moment, and ask if this is really reasonable. Perhaps the throbbing question that underlies these "heartless" decisions is really coming from the caring side -- how will we pay for it?
While the opponents of these measures continue to look like villains, they are really being the most compassionate leaders, understanding that there are no easy solutions, and that the people must be protected from an increasingly ravenous government.
The other side practices the worst kind of bribery, cleverly disguised as a largess -- handing out popular measures knowing full well that they cannot stand under the budgets of tomorrow, unless the government taxes and swells, taxes and swells. So as they toss those few coins to the people, remember that the people will be paying tribute long after all the pennies have been used.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Mitt's Dog = John's Hair
Really, they're not exactly equal, though one might mistake Mr. Edward's "do" for a shrubbery, or a small furry animal.
I thought I ought to come to his bi-partisan defense and say that just as there can be no credence in attacking Mitt Romney for his choice of transit for his dog, one shouldn't disqualify John Edwards from the Presidency because he buys haircuts for $400. While one can, case-by-case, pick apart the wisdom or even the justifiability of certain large-dollar purchases, I think that this is hardly clean cut (forgive me.)
It's part of the rather ridiculous notion that people have that wealth necessitates contempt for the poor, or that true, honest and good rich people should not actually use their money, or use it only for things like donations.
I do think that one can attack John Edwards for spending $400 on a haircut that looks like poo. Mitt Romney's equally decried $200 cuts are somewhat better.
The worst anybody can say is that these guys are getting ripped off.
(one can disqualify John Edwards from the Presidency, howerver, on the basis of him being a Red.)
I thought I ought to come to his bi-partisan defense and say that just as there can be no credence in attacking Mitt Romney for his choice of transit for his dog, one shouldn't disqualify John Edwards from the Presidency because he buys haircuts for $400. While one can, case-by-case, pick apart the wisdom or even the justifiability of certain large-dollar purchases, I think that this is hardly clean cut (forgive me.)
It's part of the rather ridiculous notion that people have that wealth necessitates contempt for the poor, or that true, honest and good rich people should not actually use their money, or use it only for things like donations.
I do think that one can attack John Edwards for spending $400 on a haircut that looks like poo. Mitt Romney's equally decried $200 cuts are somewhat better.
The worst anybody can say is that these guys are getting ripped off.
(one can disqualify John Edwards from the Presidency, howerver, on the basis of him being a Red.)
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Can't Get No Respect
As a protestant who certainly does not agree in any way with the Catholic doctrine, recently reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI, that the Catholic Church is the only pure church, and that all others are defective, I still find the following article by CNN Contributor and protestant Roland S. Martin to be immature and offensive.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/martin/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/martin/index.html
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Why That's Ironical!
Somehow the notion of Bill Clinton blasting someone for seeing the law as a "minor obstacle" is funny.
Especially over a an issue that stems from the breach of classified information. Hmm. We've been there before, I think.
Especially over a an issue that stems from the breach of classified information. Hmm. We've been there before, I think.
Commutation and Spin
I hope all of you have seen the odd response of the Democratic Party to the Scooter Libby sentence commutation. It has been uniformly supported by Republicans and uniformly condemned by the Democrats.
Most of the Democratic reactions run along the same lines as Bill Clinton's: he was aghast, horrified, but not surprised. As he says, this administration will just do what they want to do, and treat the law as "a minor obstacle."
This statement ignores the fact that a commutation of a sentence is as lawful as the sentence itself. We may argue about whether or not it was appropriate or wise, but certainly not whether or not it flew in the face of law.
Pardons and commutations have historically been a priviledge of presidents because sometimes, the discipline and conduct of politics demands that kind of action. The pardon and the commutation were necessarily brought into being as legal actions to be granted to people who had lawfully and rightly been convicted and/or sentenced.
Take for example, the actions of George Washington. One of the greatest domestic crises in American history was the Whiskey rebellion. Washington sent the army to crush it, and its leaders were arrested and tried for treason, and found guilty. Washington, having achieved the necessary end, saw fit to promptly pardon those leaders. Was that politically motivated? Surely. was it wrong or did it trample on the law? Decidedly not.
Most of the Democratic reactions run along the same lines as Bill Clinton's: he was aghast, horrified, but not surprised. As he says, this administration will just do what they want to do, and treat the law as "a minor obstacle."
This statement ignores the fact that a commutation of a sentence is as lawful as the sentence itself. We may argue about whether or not it was appropriate or wise, but certainly not whether or not it flew in the face of law.
Pardons and commutations have historically been a priviledge of presidents because sometimes, the discipline and conduct of politics demands that kind of action. The pardon and the commutation were necessarily brought into being as legal actions to be granted to people who had lawfully and rightly been convicted and/or sentenced.
Take for example, the actions of George Washington. One of the greatest domestic crises in American history was the Whiskey rebellion. Washington sent the army to crush it, and its leaders were arrested and tried for treason, and found guilty. Washington, having achieved the necessary end, saw fit to promptly pardon those leaders. Was that politically motivated? Surely. was it wrong or did it trample on the law? Decidedly not.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Words Fail Me
Only slightly more interesting than the latest Scootering around Washington is the growing scandal surrounding Mitt Romney.
What could cause such a growing storm of a scandal for such an upstanding candidate? Well, it seems the good Governor, in 1983, put a dog carrier on top of his station wagon, secured it with straps, and then drove from Boston to Ontario for a family vacation.
This appears to be, in some peoples mind, ample evidence of such latent and vicious cruelty as to certainly disqualify the man for the office of President.
How could he?? Oh dear lord! Never mind any other trifles, like moral standing on political and social issues, or other matters of miniscule importance, like leadership ability and reputation.
He put a dog cage on his car in 1983! Draw and Quarter the fellow!
What could cause such a growing storm of a scandal for such an upstanding candidate? Well, it seems the good Governor, in 1983, put a dog carrier on top of his station wagon, secured it with straps, and then drove from Boston to Ontario for a family vacation.
This appears to be, in some peoples mind, ample evidence of such latent and vicious cruelty as to certainly disqualify the man for the office of President.
How could he?? Oh dear lord! Never mind any other trifles, like moral standing on political and social issues, or other matters of miniscule importance, like leadership ability and reputation.
He put a dog cage on his car in 1983! Draw and Quarter the fellow!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Now, for something completely different
This was always a scene that could really tickle my funny bone, so to speak. It cracks me up. Today at work, I had a bit of a wild hair, and I stood up and starting singing this (yes, both parts), loudly. After I sang the monster's part, I think I got a few stares. Not the sort of behavior that people expect at a Federal Office.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Pragmatists
As I've said before, I'm listening to an excellent book by Bernard Lewis on CD. He is the world's leading scholar on Islam, and so thoroughly knowledgeable that it boggles my mind at times. One very intriguing thing he points out is the fact that there are essentially three groups into which we can categorize Muslims interacting with the West.
First, there are those Muslims which, despite the difference in religion, see at least some kinship towards the West and towards Christendom, and so are content to live peaceably with them. These, primarily because of the third group, may in fact be in minority.
Second, there are those Muslims who are viciously hostile to the West, and believe that it embodies the antithesis of Islam, and that it is the duty of Muslims to fight the West wherever they can. This can range from those who participate in an Islamic Cold War, such as Iran, to the outright terrorists, such as Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda.
Third, and most importantly, there are those Muslims who despise the West, and all that Western Civilization and Christendom embody, but nevertheless recognize its power, and so make some kind of peace or relationship, though they consider it only a temporary stage, before the moment for the final war is at hand.
As Bernard Lewis says, it would be wise not to confuse the second and third groups (such as perhaps happened when we were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, eagerly supplying Osama bin Laden, who was content to have a relationship with us at that time).
With the simultaneous processes of Shi'a Islamic revolutions springing across North Africa and the warming to the West by Mo'ammar al-Qhadhaffi, we see a prime example of this. There is a willingness to deal peacefully with the U.S. and the West by this undeniably clever leader, while he in fact simply recognizes the potent force that the U.S. wields.
When the time is right, this relationship may in fact be a source of great harm for us. In the eloquent words of the Libyan leader himself to a crowd only days ago, as he announced the fact that Libya was, officially, a Shi'a state, "What we have given to the U.S. with our left hand, we quietly took back with our right!"
First, there are those Muslims which, despite the difference in religion, see at least some kinship towards the West and towards Christendom, and so are content to live peaceably with them. These, primarily because of the third group, may in fact be in minority.
Second, there are those Muslims who are viciously hostile to the West, and believe that it embodies the antithesis of Islam, and that it is the duty of Muslims to fight the West wherever they can. This can range from those who participate in an Islamic Cold War, such as Iran, to the outright terrorists, such as Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda.
Third, and most importantly, there are those Muslims who despise the West, and all that Western Civilization and Christendom embody, but nevertheless recognize its power, and so make some kind of peace or relationship, though they consider it only a temporary stage, before the moment for the final war is at hand.
As Bernard Lewis says, it would be wise not to confuse the second and third groups (such as perhaps happened when we were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, eagerly supplying Osama bin Laden, who was content to have a relationship with us at that time).
With the simultaneous processes of Shi'a Islamic revolutions springing across North Africa and the warming to the West by Mo'ammar al-Qhadhaffi, we see a prime example of this. There is a willingness to deal peacefully with the U.S. and the West by this undeniably clever leader, while he in fact simply recognizes the potent force that the U.S. wields.
When the time is right, this relationship may in fact be a source of great harm for us. In the eloquent words of the Libyan leader himself to a crowd only days ago, as he announced the fact that Libya was, officially, a Shi'a state, "What we have given to the U.S. with our left hand, we quietly took back with our right!"
Hooray for the Still
I watched a special on the History Channel today on the distillation of various spirits, from Brandy to Moonshine to Absinthe. It was a beautiful little piece.
I have decided that upon retirement, I will either become a cheese maker, a brewer, a vintner, or a distiller to fill my spare time.
Oh, and plus reading and smoking pipes, and other stuff old men who were born in the wrong century do.
(Also, a little tidbit -- I watched the music video to Rick James' 1981 hit Superfreak today for the first time. Being rased as I was, I never was exposed to that kind of thing. It was very funny. I wonder if it was really even meant in all seriousness. What a weird time. I hope that history largely forgets 1965-1995. Weird, weird, weird.)
I have decided that upon retirement, I will either become a cheese maker, a brewer, a vintner, or a distiller to fill my spare time.
Oh, and plus reading and smoking pipes, and other stuff old men who were born in the wrong century do.
(Also, a little tidbit -- I watched the music video to Rick James' 1981 hit Superfreak today for the first time. Being rased as I was, I never was exposed to that kind of thing. It was very funny. I wonder if it was really even meant in all seriousness. What a weird time. I hope that history largely forgets 1965-1995. Weird, weird, weird.)
Shhhhh
There seems to be much ado in Washington concerning the conduct of the office of the Vice President these days. It seems just one more branch of a larger effort to dismantle anything of the Bush way, regardless of its long term result.
The commentators are screaming about the incredible secrecy of this Vice President, and indeed, of the whole administration. One reporter went on and on at length about how secrets are the enemies of Democracy.
Some reporters and commentators and other talking heads would essentially have a fully transparent government -- and that no actions of that government could be hidden. This, or anything remotely approaching it, is ridiculous.
Government secrets must exist. They are just part of the larger issue of the restriction of liberties in exchange for security. We in America get particularly itchy on this point -- but I believe that is not thanks to our democratic ideals, but rather to liberal mantras. That idea of an exchange seems to go against everything that we as Americans have always held dear as ideals -- Liberty, Freedom, and a certain distrust of government (distrust of government is one thing -- hostile reaction to it's existance is something else).
But applying those ideals to the matter of government transparency in the broad, sweeping way it is being done is absurd. In fact, that exchange, the give and take of liberties and securities, is what government is. Let's remember our Hobbs and Locke here. Total liberty and total freedom are simply the absence of any kind of government at all. The minute men come together and form a government for the purpose of regulation, security, and defense, they must relinquish some level of self-governance.
As soon as we might say that secrets are the enemy of democracy, we might say that liberties are the enemy of security.
There is, undoubtedly, a spectrum along which these things lie -- it is not simply one or the other. There must be some kind of balance. But I don't believe the media when they claim that there is a shifting balance. American accountability over its government has never been more thorough, and perhaps, never quite so self-damning. What is going on is a political group trying to form a delicate, under-the-table putsch, using the language and concepts that are so near and dear to us, ignoring the fact that as they do so, they are inevitably eroding the principles that truly make Western government, and I would go so far as to say Western Democracy, so powerful.
(Certainly there seem to be coming to light things and actions in the administration, particularly in the VPship, that have been, considered well, ill-considered or unwise. I'm not talking about the issues specifically, though I think that they were almost certainly motivated by an intense desire to do good, and nothing else.)
The commentators are screaming about the incredible secrecy of this Vice President, and indeed, of the whole administration. One reporter went on and on at length about how secrets are the enemies of Democracy.
Some reporters and commentators and other talking heads would essentially have a fully transparent government -- and that no actions of that government could be hidden. This, or anything remotely approaching it, is ridiculous.
Government secrets must exist. They are just part of the larger issue of the restriction of liberties in exchange for security. We in America get particularly itchy on this point -- but I believe that is not thanks to our democratic ideals, but rather to liberal mantras. That idea of an exchange seems to go against everything that we as Americans have always held dear as ideals -- Liberty, Freedom, and a certain distrust of government (distrust of government is one thing -- hostile reaction to it's existance is something else).
But applying those ideals to the matter of government transparency in the broad, sweeping way it is being done is absurd. In fact, that exchange, the give and take of liberties and securities, is what government is. Let's remember our Hobbs and Locke here. Total liberty and total freedom are simply the absence of any kind of government at all. The minute men come together and form a government for the purpose of regulation, security, and defense, they must relinquish some level of self-governance.
As soon as we might say that secrets are the enemy of democracy, we might say that liberties are the enemy of security.
There is, undoubtedly, a spectrum along which these things lie -- it is not simply one or the other. There must be some kind of balance. But I don't believe the media when they claim that there is a shifting balance. American accountability over its government has never been more thorough, and perhaps, never quite so self-damning. What is going on is a political group trying to form a delicate, under-the-table putsch, using the language and concepts that are so near and dear to us, ignoring the fact that as they do so, they are inevitably eroding the principles that truly make Western government, and I would go so far as to say Western Democracy, so powerful.
(Certainly there seem to be coming to light things and actions in the administration, particularly in the VPship, that have been, considered well, ill-considered or unwise. I'm not talking about the issues specifically, though I think that they were almost certainly motivated by an intense desire to do good, and nothing else.)
That's Entertainment!
At 10 minutes to 5 P.M. Eastern, here are the major headlines on CNN.
"Benoit's Death Raise Roid-Rage Questions"
"Gay! Can you Tell? -Clip 1- -Clip 2- -Clip 3- -Clip 4- -key-"
"JibJab's Star-Spangled Banner"
"Fashion Designer Liz Claiborne Dead at 78"
"Surviving Beatles and Widows Come Together"
"Paris Hilton Ready for her Close Up"
"Fireworks Can Blast Your Melon to Smithereens!"
"Beatles Were Magic, Says McCartney"
And down a the bottom, there's a little link to the "World's Top Stories." I guess those would be things like War, Politics, Legal Matters, International Crises, and the Economy. Trifles, really.
"Benoit's Death Raise Roid-Rage Questions"
"Gay! Can you Tell? -Clip 1- -Clip 2- -Clip 3- -Clip 4- -key-"
"JibJab's Star-Spangled Banner"
"Fashion Designer Liz Claiborne Dead at 78"
"Surviving Beatles and Widows Come Together"
"Paris Hilton Ready for her Close Up"
"Fireworks Can Blast Your Melon to Smithereens!"
"Beatles Were Magic, Says McCartney"
And down a the bottom, there's a little link to the "World's Top Stories." I guess those would be things like War, Politics, Legal Matters, International Crises, and the Economy. Trifles, really.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Swearing and Russians
The previous post was one that took me some time to write, so you can imagine my chagrin when I discovered it had not posted correctly.
Never fear, the matter has been corrected.
Which is good, because I thought I had lost it, in which case I would not have had the energy to write further -- for two reasons, both related to the sort of stiffish White Russian by my keyboard.
I will let the first Modern Turk do my talking.
"I've got to drink: my mind keeps on working hard and fast to the point of suffering. I have to slow it down to rest it at times. "
and
"What a lovely drink this is, it makes one want to be a poet."
Both courtesy of Mostafa Kamal "Ataturk."
(Good Turk! Good Turk! Here's a treat, Turk! Atta-Turk!)
((that's such a crap joke!))
Never fear, the matter has been corrected.
Which is good, because I thought I had lost it, in which case I would not have had the energy to write further -- for two reasons, both related to the sort of stiffish White Russian by my keyboard.
I will let the first Modern Turk do my talking.
"I've got to drink: my mind keeps on working hard and fast to the point of suffering. I have to slow it down to rest it at times. "
and
"What a lovely drink this is, it makes one want to be a poet."
Both courtesy of Mostafa Kamal "Ataturk."
(Good Turk! Good Turk! Here's a treat, Turk! Atta-Turk!)
((that's such a crap joke!))
The Caliph and the Imam
I was listening today to an audio book by a great scholar of Islamic studies, Bernard Lewis. I recommend him to anyone who is short of reading materials. While I think that the suggestion of U.S. News and World -- "Learn something about Islam to better your life" -- comes completely from the wrong place, I think that knowledge of the intricacies of Islamic thought and suppositions is not just fascinating, but vital.
Bernard Lewis made a passing comment that struck me deeply. He was discussing the role of the Caliph in the Sunni Islamic "state." He noted that the Caliph was a religious and political leader, not a spiritual head.
Most people are aware of some vague concept of the Sunni-Shi'a divide in Islam, and though the sub-history and divisions of each (particularly Shi'a) are terrifically complex, the broader issues are not.
Shi'a Islam broke from Sunni the generation after Mohammad based upon the issue of succession -- those who would later be Sunnis, the majority, favored one successor, while another group, who would be Shi'ites, favored the son-in-law of the prophet.
Some rather major complications aside, the main branch of Sunni Islam followed Caliphates, leaders who were the heirs of Mohammad, from then on, while the Shi'ites followed a much more direct and formalized line of descendants of Mohammad, who led Shi'a Islam as Imams, through twelve generations. The Caliphate continued throughout Arab, North African, and Turkish lands through the early 20th century, when it was finally abolished, with the last serious Caliphate being done away with in Turkey under the rule of Mostafa Kamal - Ataturk.
The current wave of violent Islam worldwide is being waged on both Sunni and Shi'a fronts -- and though they are in combat with one another in Iraq, they are generally working for the same purpose.
In a sense, the ideal of each of the two Jihadist waves is the reestablishment of the Islamic order that once was. It is a misnomer to say state, because Islam has always superceded states. In the same way that we might break down a country by the demographic of religion, a good Muslim would look at broader Islam, and demographically break down ethnicity or nationality.
Sunni Islam in the extremist ideals is looking for a restored Caliphate, just as the Shi'ites are trying to bring about the return of the Imam. Just as Ahmedinejad has publically claimed that he has been shown in a vision that he will bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam, Osama bin Laden has been accused of attempting to establish himself as the new Caliph.
The Caliph is a political leader of a religion, while the Imam is a spiritual leader of a people. Ironically enough, Shi'ite spiritualism seems to lead more to Statism and terrorism by armies (such as Hezbollah, the various Iranian-sponsored forces), whereas the Caliphate Sunni extremism leads to the blood-thirsty, wild-eyed individualistic jihadist ferver that we see with the more agressive and uncontrollable terrorism of Al-Qaeda.
Bernard Lewis made a passing comment that struck me deeply. He was discussing the role of the Caliph in the Sunni Islamic "state." He noted that the Caliph was a religious and political leader, not a spiritual head.
Most people are aware of some vague concept of the Sunni-Shi'a divide in Islam, and though the sub-history and divisions of each (particularly Shi'a) are terrifically complex, the broader issues are not.
Shi'a Islam broke from Sunni the generation after Mohammad based upon the issue of succession -- those who would later be Sunnis, the majority, favored one successor, while another group, who would be Shi'ites, favored the son-in-law of the prophet.
Some rather major complications aside, the main branch of Sunni Islam followed Caliphates, leaders who were the heirs of Mohammad, from then on, while the Shi'ites followed a much more direct and formalized line of descendants of Mohammad, who led Shi'a Islam as Imams, through twelve generations. The Caliphate continued throughout Arab, North African, and Turkish lands through the early 20th century, when it was finally abolished, with the last serious Caliphate being done away with in Turkey under the rule of Mostafa Kamal - Ataturk.
The current wave of violent Islam worldwide is being waged on both Sunni and Shi'a fronts -- and though they are in combat with one another in Iraq, they are generally working for the same purpose.
In a sense, the ideal of each of the two Jihadist waves is the reestablishment of the Islamic order that once was. It is a misnomer to say state, because Islam has always superceded states. In the same way that we might break down a country by the demographic of religion, a good Muslim would look at broader Islam, and demographically break down ethnicity or nationality.
Sunni Islam in the extremist ideals is looking for a restored Caliphate, just as the Shi'ites are trying to bring about the return of the Imam. Just as Ahmedinejad has publically claimed that he has been shown in a vision that he will bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam, Osama bin Laden has been accused of attempting to establish himself as the new Caliph.
The Caliph is a political leader of a religion, while the Imam is a spiritual leader of a people. Ironically enough, Shi'ite spiritualism seems to lead more to Statism and terrorism by armies (such as Hezbollah, the various Iranian-sponsored forces), whereas the Caliphate Sunni extremism leads to the blood-thirsty, wild-eyed individualistic jihadist ferver that we see with the more agressive and uncontrollable terrorism of Al-Qaeda.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Against The Critics
A while back, I ranted against the miserable collapse of Tim McGraw's and Faith Hill's lyrical (let alone musical) abilities. There were those among you who objected.
Thankfully, Tim and Faith rushed to my defense, and brought about a new song, which I hope silences all criticism. May I present "I need you."
(Tim)I wanna drink that shot of whiskey
I wanna smoke that cigarette
I wanna smell that sweet addiction on my breathe
I wanna ride across West Virginia in the back seat of a Cadillac
You know some cowboys like me go out like that
So I need youLike a needle needs a vein
Like my uncle Joe in Oklahoma needs a rain
And I need youLike a lighthouse on the coast
Like the father and the son need the Holy Ghost
I need you
(Faith)I wanna get lost in some corner booth,
Cantina Mexicowanna dance to the static of an AM radio
wanna wrap the moon around us,
lay beside you skin on skin
Make love til the sun comes up,
til the sun goes down again
Cause I need youLike a needle needs a vein
Like uncle Joe in Oklahoma needs a rain
I need youLike a lighthouse needs a coast
Like the father and the son need the Holy Ghost
I need you, OOH I need you
(Tim)I wanna drink that shot of whiskey
I wanna smoke that cigarette
You know some cowboys like me go out like that
So I need you, whoa I need you
I need you I need you I need you, I need you
Now, if you're like me, you may need a few minutes to stop scratching your heads. This is simply incomprehensible to me. There are several (only several) lines that might have a place in a song, in isolation. But the whole of this is really, frankly, weird. The central line seems especially odd. If it's not just strange and out-of-place, I certainly think it must be a drug reference.
Bizarre.
Thankfully, Tim and Faith rushed to my defense, and brought about a new song, which I hope silences all criticism. May I present "I need you."
(Tim)I wanna drink that shot of whiskey
I wanna smoke that cigarette
I wanna smell that sweet addiction on my breathe
I wanna ride across West Virginia in the back seat of a Cadillac
You know some cowboys like me go out like that
So I need youLike a needle needs a vein
Like my uncle Joe in Oklahoma needs a rain
And I need youLike a lighthouse on the coast
Like the father and the son need the Holy Ghost
I need you
(Faith)I wanna get lost in some corner booth,
Cantina Mexicowanna dance to the static of an AM radio
wanna wrap the moon around us,
lay beside you skin on skin
Make love til the sun comes up,
til the sun goes down again
Cause I need youLike a needle needs a vein
Like uncle Joe in Oklahoma needs a rain
I need youLike a lighthouse needs a coast
Like the father and the son need the Holy Ghost
I need you, OOH I need you
(Tim)I wanna drink that shot of whiskey
I wanna smoke that cigarette
You know some cowboys like me go out like that
So I need you, whoa I need you
I need you I need you I need you, I need you
Now, if you're like me, you may need a few minutes to stop scratching your heads. This is simply incomprehensible to me. There are several (only several) lines that might have a place in a song, in isolation. But the whole of this is really, frankly, weird. The central line seems especially odd. If it's not just strange and out-of-place, I certainly think it must be a drug reference.
Bizarre.
Woodstock, 2007
One of the two most common themes that are repeated in media circles are also perhaps the two most common lies that have crept into the broader American way of thinking on current affairs. First, there is no connection between the broader issue of international Islamic terrorism and the war in Iraq. Second, the violence being visited upon Americans is simply a result of our presence there -- and therefore, our departure would certainly end our danger in the Iraq crisis.
Was there a connection between the Iraqi government and global Islamic Jihadists before September 11th and the invasion of Iraq? I don't know. We may never know exactly. Based on my knowledge of that regime, it's thuggish and criminal dealings, and the resources it commanded, combined with the aspirations and restrictions on groups like Al-Qaeda and others certainly would indicate to me something like this: if the Jihadists were not tied in any way, or had not thought of tying themselves to the Iraqi regime, the ought to have, and were very much simpletons if they did not.
However, this is hardly the issue.
A fool (one unblinded by the mantras that ooze into our lives every day) can see that there is certainly now a connection. Iraq has become a Woodstock for Islamic Jihadists, in a way. A generation of the worst throughout the Middle East are flocking to Iraq to take on the new Crusaders in what they see as -- to borrow the label that an American commander famously applied to fleeing Iraqi soldiers -- a target-rich environment. They come from all the different brands of Militant Islam.
There are the thuggish, criminalistic, drug-smuggling Arabs who make up Al-Qaeda, whose goal seems little more than a global ring of disenfranchised anarchists thriving on violence and crime and money. There are the clever and methodical agents of the Qods Force, and the Revolutionary Guards from Iran, combined with their protoges, Hezbollah, who are bent on a global religious and political agenda. And then there are the individual young men of the Middle Eastern world, covering the spectrum from fanatically religious to nihilistic, who have been raised with their heads filled with the notion of tearing down, tearing down, tearing down, and never building -- whose fathers were off fighting and throwing rocks at Israelis instead of building cities and whose mothers carefully recited the blazing words of the Qor'an to them from the age of innocence onward.
There is hardly a tie at all between Iraq and Islamic Global Terror -- they are the same. Without these international villains, Iraq would be at peace. So they say we have created a breeding ground for terrorism. Perhaps so. But this was not just our doing. We did not ourselves create it -- it has been decades in the making, as the poison of Naziism and Stalinism slipped into the already boiling pots of Islam. Perhaps centuries in the making.
In reference to the second observation, I again submit that only a fool could presume that if we turn tail in the face of difficulty, our lives will be saved. It is vitally important that people understand -- and I have very real experience with this -- that there are those in this world who, rationally or not, hate us, and will do us harm, whether in their nation or ours. I believe that bringing things to a front -- making a stand -- is right.
And it also occurs to me: in another place and time, the accusation that we had brought about the confluence of these elements would be a heroic description. To borrow a (perhaps cliched) Western analogy, it would seem that Wyatt Earp's stance brought about the gathering of the most vicious elements of western gangs. The whole group might not have accumulated if he had not so stood.
If the nations of Europe had not taken a stand against Naziism and later Stalinism, than perhaps 60 million people would not have died as a result of those conflicts last century. Are they therefore guilty of that blood? Or was it perhaps the right thing to do regardless?
I heard a reporter compare thenumber of people killed by international terrorism last year to the number of people struck by lightning -- about 400. So why the preoccupation? Are those 400 worth thousands of of our lives?
I do not hesitate to say yes.
Was there a connection between the Iraqi government and global Islamic Jihadists before September 11th and the invasion of Iraq? I don't know. We may never know exactly. Based on my knowledge of that regime, it's thuggish and criminal dealings, and the resources it commanded, combined with the aspirations and restrictions on groups like Al-Qaeda and others certainly would indicate to me something like this: if the Jihadists were not tied in any way, or had not thought of tying themselves to the Iraqi regime, the ought to have, and were very much simpletons if they did not.
However, this is hardly the issue.
A fool (one unblinded by the mantras that ooze into our lives every day) can see that there is certainly now a connection. Iraq has become a Woodstock for Islamic Jihadists, in a way. A generation of the worst throughout the Middle East are flocking to Iraq to take on the new Crusaders in what they see as -- to borrow the label that an American commander famously applied to fleeing Iraqi soldiers -- a target-rich environment. They come from all the different brands of Militant Islam.
There are the thuggish, criminalistic, drug-smuggling Arabs who make up Al-Qaeda, whose goal seems little more than a global ring of disenfranchised anarchists thriving on violence and crime and money. There are the clever and methodical agents of the Qods Force, and the Revolutionary Guards from Iran, combined with their protoges, Hezbollah, who are bent on a global religious and political agenda. And then there are the individual young men of the Middle Eastern world, covering the spectrum from fanatically religious to nihilistic, who have been raised with their heads filled with the notion of tearing down, tearing down, tearing down, and never building -- whose fathers were off fighting and throwing rocks at Israelis instead of building cities and whose mothers carefully recited the blazing words of the Qor'an to them from the age of innocence onward.
There is hardly a tie at all between Iraq and Islamic Global Terror -- they are the same. Without these international villains, Iraq would be at peace. So they say we have created a breeding ground for terrorism. Perhaps so. But this was not just our doing. We did not ourselves create it -- it has been decades in the making, as the poison of Naziism and Stalinism slipped into the already boiling pots of Islam. Perhaps centuries in the making.
In reference to the second observation, I again submit that only a fool could presume that if we turn tail in the face of difficulty, our lives will be saved. It is vitally important that people understand -- and I have very real experience with this -- that there are those in this world who, rationally or not, hate us, and will do us harm, whether in their nation or ours. I believe that bringing things to a front -- making a stand -- is right.
And it also occurs to me: in another place and time, the accusation that we had brought about the confluence of these elements would be a heroic description. To borrow a (perhaps cliched) Western analogy, it would seem that Wyatt Earp's stance brought about the gathering of the most vicious elements of western gangs. The whole group might not have accumulated if he had not so stood.
If the nations of Europe had not taken a stand against Naziism and later Stalinism, than perhaps 60 million people would not have died as a result of those conflicts last century. Are they therefore guilty of that blood? Or was it perhaps the right thing to do regardless?
I heard a reporter compare thenumber of people killed by international terrorism last year to the number of people struck by lightning -- about 400. So why the preoccupation? Are those 400 worth thousands of of our lives?
I do not hesitate to say yes.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
George Will vs. Lou Dobbs
I heard a program on NPR a little while back in which the host made some passing remark about "conservatives, Republicans, like Lou Dobbs." George Will, a guest on the show, shot back "Lou Dobbs is not a Republican."
I, for one, am tired of Lou's awful attempt at making a legendary persona for himself. His neither-this-party-nor-that, just-a-man-of-the-people stance combined with that semi-gruff and 'honest' word on everything does not, and will never, make him a George Will.
I, for one, am tired of Lou's awful attempt at making a legendary persona for himself. His neither-this-party-nor-that, just-a-man-of-the-people stance combined with that semi-gruff and 'honest' word on everything does not, and will never, make him a George Will.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Purity and Peace
My wife made the excellent point that on the two sides of the debate, what comes out the fingertips of the FVers rather than out the fingertips of the PCA et al demonstrates much more than do the issues.
I only really started to understand the FV concepts about a week ago -- until then, I had no side, though was admittedly more attracted to the Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart side simply because they are men whose wisdom has been very manifest to me in the past. But it was also clear in this that one side was trying to actively pursue the gospel Church-wide and the other was clinging to Ecclesia Reformata, forgetting the Semper Reformanda bit and falling into woefull and crude nativism, although clearly through the best intentions and uninformed wisdom of good men. The PCA has allowed its intellectual base to erode, and ignorance is governing what's happening.
I really commend Doug Wilson's response to yesterday to anyone who's interested. It's under Gold is Heavy, and Hard to Carry on his blog, linked to the right.
I only really started to understand the FV concepts about a week ago -- until then, I had no side, though was admittedly more attracted to the Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart side simply because they are men whose wisdom has been very manifest to me in the past. But it was also clear in this that one side was trying to actively pursue the gospel Church-wide and the other was clinging to Ecclesia Reformata, forgetting the Semper Reformanda bit and falling into woefull and crude nativism, although clearly through the best intentions and uninformed wisdom of good men. The PCA has allowed its intellectual base to erode, and ignorance is governing what's happening.
I really commend Doug Wilson's response to yesterday to anyone who's interested. It's under Gold is Heavy, and Hard to Carry on his blog, linked to the right.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Federal Vision
I'm watching the PCA General Assembly live in Memphis right now with the use of my brand new cable internet.
This is quite disappointing to me. Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart are practically jumping up and down (not at the GA, obviously) trying to say that the committee's report does not represent the true holdings of the FV, but the PCA seems to ignore that. Or rather squash it.
Case in point: currently the motion before the GA is to give the committee another year to perform the exegesis and interpretation and also to incorporate various views on the committee. (Current committee is formed of established anti-FV ministers). The motion is being roudly attacked, even by the likes of R.C. Sproul, who, I'm afraid, used fuzzy logic.
According to Sproul, there was a committee to find out if there was justification to put FV people on the research committee, and it was decided that no, there was not. As Sproul said, why put the accused on the Jury.
What? Let's have a committee of one sided people to decide if the other side should be represented on a committee to determine if the latter side is justified in their beliefs.
It's circular.
Another pastor made the extraordinary false analogy of saying "Would we keep a member on the committee if he didn't believe in the deity of Christ?"
This is quite disappointing to me. Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart are practically jumping up and down (not at the GA, obviously) trying to say that the committee's report does not represent the true holdings of the FV, but the PCA seems to ignore that. Or rather squash it.
Case in point: currently the motion before the GA is to give the committee another year to perform the exegesis and interpretation and also to incorporate various views on the committee. (Current committee is formed of established anti-FV ministers). The motion is being roudly attacked, even by the likes of R.C. Sproul, who, I'm afraid, used fuzzy logic.
According to Sproul, there was a committee to find out if there was justification to put FV people on the research committee, and it was decided that no, there was not. As Sproul said, why put the accused on the Jury.
What? Let's have a committee of one sided people to decide if the other side should be represented on a committee to determine if the latter side is justified in their beliefs.
It's circular.
Another pastor made the extraordinary false analogy of saying "Would we keep a member on the committee if he didn't believe in the deity of Christ?"
Monday, June 11, 2007
And I'm Off!
At last, cable internet at home. Now, all you all will never read anything on my blog, because I'll be posting like the wind.
Twice a day.
Three times a day.
I'll throw caution to the wind, and blog like no one has ever blogged before. Perhaps I'll even wrestle wildlife. It's amazing how freedom bolsters the broad chests of Manly Men.
Twice a day.
Three times a day.
I'll throw caution to the wind, and blog like no one has ever blogged before. Perhaps I'll even wrestle wildlife. It's amazing how freedom bolsters the broad chests of Manly Men.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Handouts, Please!
I was flipping through the paper this morning (I love reading a real paper), when I saw an Associated Press article which started with this incredible statement.
"These days, the American dream is just that -- a dream. New studies show that children these days will not necessarily be better off economically then their parents."
I really don't think that was ever the American dream -- no one was ever necessarily better off than their parents. Andrew Carnegie, raised in poverty, didn't become a wealthy businessman because that's just the way things happened to him. It's called work, folks.
I sometimes think we're becoming more socialist. Quietly, under the table.
"These days, the American dream is just that -- a dream. New studies show that children these days will not necessarily be better off economically then their parents."
I really don't think that was ever the American dream -- no one was ever necessarily better off than their parents. Andrew Carnegie, raised in poverty, didn't become a wealthy businessman because that's just the way things happened to him. It's called work, folks.
I sometimes think we're becoming more socialist. Quietly, under the table.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Rudy's Lightning
If that wasn't from God, it ought to have been.
Go Freddie!
Or John!
Either one is fine by me.
Go Freddie!
Or John!
Either one is fine by me.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Another dream
A few nights ago I had another rather disturbing dream.
I lived in a house at the end of a long street. All the houses on this street were made of stones, and they extended as far as I could see. I had just moved in, and the house was empty.
Every evening for the first few evenings I lived there, a very tall and large man in a military uniform walked by and spoke to me, and entered the house next door. He called himself The Colonel.
One day, I came home to my house to find the windows broken -- or rather cut. All kinds of weird and bizzare and macabre symbols were cut into the glass of the windows, and slashed into the walls inside. Stars, strange animals, spirals and webs covered everything. Just as I entered my house to see all this, I heard The Colonel step past behind me, without uttering a word. I knew that he had done this, but I don't know how I knew, or why he had.
Two days later, my house still empty and covered in these symbols, I woke in the middle of the night to a loud humming. I looked and saw that all the walls and ceilings of my house were covered in a think carpet of flies, spiders, crickets, roaches, wasps, and mosquitos. They were layered six inches thick on every surface. I tried to systematically cover them with plastic sheets, and strangely they did not fly around, or respond at all. As I was working at trying to control the insects, I again saw the shape of The Colonel walk past my window.
The next night, I sat behind the bushes, hidden by a shadow, and waited. The Colonel walked by my house and proceeded past the house that I thought was his, and around the next. I followed behind him and grabbed his shoulder. "I've got you," I said. "You are going to the wrong house." The colonel just snarled and pulled away, entering a giant mansion that was hidden behind the row of stone houses along the street. I followed him, but realized I had to carefully pass between two statues. They were giant dogs, or wolves of some kind. Though their bodies appeared to be stone -- they were a silvery granite color -- I thought I perceived the stone eyes shift, and the stone sides heave. Each one wore a symbol around its neck.
I continued inside the mansion, only to find The Colonel talking excitedly with another man. He was a small, pudgy, effeminate man wearing a long robe, but from his neck, two heads sprang. One seemed to belong to him, but the other seemed almost independant. It was the head of a child. The Colonel and he looked towards me, and said nothing, but the mouth on the head of the child opened and a low moan came out. I ran to the door, turned, and shouted that I would fight back.
As I ran outside, an Asian man with a sword was waiting at the gate. He struck me flat on the head, then threw me out the gate, telling me never to return. I went home.
The next night, as I returned to my house, I heard a loud chaos inside. I entered, and I saw on the floor there was a large pool, or bath. The Colonel was in it, up to his knees, visciously trying to drown the pudgy man beneath the water. Both heads writhed in his hands as I stood frozen, until at last, the head of the man stayed beneath the water, pale and bloated. However, the neck and head of the child continued to struggle against The Colonel, as screams erupted again and again. I quickly grabbed a chunk of wood that I found on the mantel, and struck wildly at The Colonel's head. He was caught completely off guard, and his head slammed into the side of the pool. I struck him again and again on the head until the wood began to crack, and the hair on his head where I was hitting sank into blood and crushed bone. Finally the wood split, and I grabbed the two jagged pieces, sinking one deep into the crushed skull of The Colonel, and the other through the neck of the Child's head.
After a moment, the water became still, and the house was silent. As the sun sank in the window, I saw the shadow of the Asian man who had stood outside their mansion.
I lived in a house at the end of a long street. All the houses on this street were made of stones, and they extended as far as I could see. I had just moved in, and the house was empty.
Every evening for the first few evenings I lived there, a very tall and large man in a military uniform walked by and spoke to me, and entered the house next door. He called himself The Colonel.
One day, I came home to my house to find the windows broken -- or rather cut. All kinds of weird and bizzare and macabre symbols were cut into the glass of the windows, and slashed into the walls inside. Stars, strange animals, spirals and webs covered everything. Just as I entered my house to see all this, I heard The Colonel step past behind me, without uttering a word. I knew that he had done this, but I don't know how I knew, or why he had.
Two days later, my house still empty and covered in these symbols, I woke in the middle of the night to a loud humming. I looked and saw that all the walls and ceilings of my house were covered in a think carpet of flies, spiders, crickets, roaches, wasps, and mosquitos. They were layered six inches thick on every surface. I tried to systematically cover them with plastic sheets, and strangely they did not fly around, or respond at all. As I was working at trying to control the insects, I again saw the shape of The Colonel walk past my window.
The next night, I sat behind the bushes, hidden by a shadow, and waited. The Colonel walked by my house and proceeded past the house that I thought was his, and around the next. I followed behind him and grabbed his shoulder. "I've got you," I said. "You are going to the wrong house." The colonel just snarled and pulled away, entering a giant mansion that was hidden behind the row of stone houses along the street. I followed him, but realized I had to carefully pass between two statues. They were giant dogs, or wolves of some kind. Though their bodies appeared to be stone -- they were a silvery granite color -- I thought I perceived the stone eyes shift, and the stone sides heave. Each one wore a symbol around its neck.
I continued inside the mansion, only to find The Colonel talking excitedly with another man. He was a small, pudgy, effeminate man wearing a long robe, but from his neck, two heads sprang. One seemed to belong to him, but the other seemed almost independant. It was the head of a child. The Colonel and he looked towards me, and said nothing, but the mouth on the head of the child opened and a low moan came out. I ran to the door, turned, and shouted that I would fight back.
As I ran outside, an Asian man with a sword was waiting at the gate. He struck me flat on the head, then threw me out the gate, telling me never to return. I went home.
The next night, as I returned to my house, I heard a loud chaos inside. I entered, and I saw on the floor there was a large pool, or bath. The Colonel was in it, up to his knees, visciously trying to drown the pudgy man beneath the water. Both heads writhed in his hands as I stood frozen, until at last, the head of the man stayed beneath the water, pale and bloated. However, the neck and head of the child continued to struggle against The Colonel, as screams erupted again and again. I quickly grabbed a chunk of wood that I found on the mantel, and struck wildly at The Colonel's head. He was caught completely off guard, and his head slammed into the side of the pool. I struck him again and again on the head until the wood began to crack, and the hair on his head where I was hitting sank into blood and crushed bone. Finally the wood split, and I grabbed the two jagged pieces, sinking one deep into the crushed skull of The Colonel, and the other through the neck of the Child's head.
After a moment, the water became still, and the house was silent. As the sun sank in the window, I saw the shadow of the Asian man who had stood outside their mansion.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Joseph Ruggles and his boy
I was seated in church this Sunday at the First Presbyterian Church of Augusta, a stately church founded in 1804, when I noticed a plaque on the pew across from me. I was surprised to read the following inscription:
In memory of Woodrow Wilson,
Who, as a boy, worshipped here
Where his father, Joseph Ruggles Wilson,
Was minister from 1856 to 1871.
And, it turns out, Woodrow's boyhood home is across the street.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The French can be a bit French
I know I haven't gotten on here and posted for quite some time. Bekah just moved down here (finally!), so things have been a little busy. I am soon getting internet at my house, so it should be easier -- as long as I can find internet for less than 60 bucks a month. Good Grief.
Anyhow, I hope you are all watching the international political scene. These are exciting times. My favorite international elections took place recently. If you can unravel the inscruitable tangle of the French political system, you are brilliant. If you can't, it's enough to know that once again, the conservative candidate (this time quite conservative for a Frenchman) took the day, narrowly beating out the other end of the spectrum.
Nicolas Sarcozy will, I think, deftly be able to address some of the militant immigration problems that France faces, and gave a stunning and heartwarming speech about the French debt to America, and its duty to support and maintain good relations with the U.S.
And in England, my own favorite Tony Blair is going, and the rather dry and curmudgeon-ish Gordon Brown will take office soon. He's a liberal, but a rather far-right one. And of course, it is England we're talking about. They don't get too liberal ever. He's been the finance minister for a decade, and has overseen the greatest period of British prosperity since WWII. He's considered a brilliant man, and an intellectual. And he's a Scot.
I'm excited about both. However, I think that Sarcozy may have the tendency to be a bit too sweeping and idealistic. He's run his whole political life that way, and perhaps in his zeal and enthusiasm, his programs might crumple. Brown, on the other hand, may run the opposite problem of being just a bit too focused, and not realize the opportunity he has.
We shall see.
Anyhow, I hope you are all watching the international political scene. These are exciting times. My favorite international elections took place recently. If you can unravel the inscruitable tangle of the French political system, you are brilliant. If you can't, it's enough to know that once again, the conservative candidate (this time quite conservative for a Frenchman) took the day, narrowly beating out the other end of the spectrum.
Nicolas Sarcozy will, I think, deftly be able to address some of the militant immigration problems that France faces, and gave a stunning and heartwarming speech about the French debt to America, and its duty to support and maintain good relations with the U.S.
And in England, my own favorite Tony Blair is going, and the rather dry and curmudgeon-ish Gordon Brown will take office soon. He's a liberal, but a rather far-right one. And of course, it is England we're talking about. They don't get too liberal ever. He's been the finance minister for a decade, and has overseen the greatest period of British prosperity since WWII. He's considered a brilliant man, and an intellectual. And he's a Scot.
I'm excited about both. However, I think that Sarcozy may have the tendency to be a bit too sweeping and idealistic. He's run his whole political life that way, and perhaps in his zeal and enthusiasm, his programs might crumple. Brown, on the other hand, may run the opposite problem of being just a bit too focused, and not realize the opportunity he has.
We shall see.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Tim's Gone Crazy
Here's a more low-level poet for you to attack, Jack. Or maybe you'll love him. At least he rhymes.
What's the deal with Tim McGraw? I just don't understand his last few songs. I can't figure them out. Am I missing something?
Country music tells stories. Tim McGraw sings these odd little lyrics that are nothing more than pretty words strung together. What's up?
Like -- "Dancing When the Stars go Blue," whatever that "1-2-3 like a bird I sing" song is called.... and there are more.
Get lost, Tim and Faith. You guys were okay back in the day. Nobody likes you anymore. Rich jerks.
What's the deal with Tim McGraw? I just don't understand his last few songs. I can't figure them out. Am I missing something?
Country music tells stories. Tim McGraw sings these odd little lyrics that are nothing more than pretty words strung together. What's up?
Like -- "Dancing When the Stars go Blue," whatever that "1-2-3 like a bird I sing" song is called.... and there are more.
Get lost, Tim and Faith. You guys were okay back in the day. Nobody likes you anymore. Rich jerks.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Wikidemics
I know everyone comments on Wikipedia. Most are philosophically opposed to the database. I guess I am as well, though I certainly can't deny that I frequently use it. It works if you're looking for a quick summary of something, or even as a familiarization with a term.
But wikipedia is a good discussion springboard for a broader question of modern academics.
In the Middle Ages, with the monastical origins of modern universities and the pursuit of academics, this pursuit was a blend of mystery and logic. Fundamentally deductive, this pursuit involved scholars with limited information on their hands using first principles and observed truth to reach new knowledge.
In short, I believe that modern academics were founded on a balance that naturally favored reasoning and first principles to information.
Somewhere recently I think we must have hit a point of inflection (in the calculus sense). Postmodern academics, for lack of a better term, was born when academia began to favor a preponderance of information. And now, with the internet, among other resources, we have a gross overabundance of information.
The problem is that now, for the weight of the information, knowledge and truth seem to increasingly suffer, or perhaps become even irrelevant. (E.G., Wiki-ism)
Strange that the beautiful work of centuries of academia has built an information Tower of Babel. And now nothing is clear, and nothing makes sense, and we have lost the foundation we first built on.
But wikipedia is a good discussion springboard for a broader question of modern academics.
In the Middle Ages, with the monastical origins of modern universities and the pursuit of academics, this pursuit was a blend of mystery and logic. Fundamentally deductive, this pursuit involved scholars with limited information on their hands using first principles and observed truth to reach new knowledge.
In short, I believe that modern academics were founded on a balance that naturally favored reasoning and first principles to information.
Somewhere recently I think we must have hit a point of inflection (in the calculus sense). Postmodern academics, for lack of a better term, was born when academia began to favor a preponderance of information. And now, with the internet, among other resources, we have a gross overabundance of information.
The problem is that now, for the weight of the information, knowledge and truth seem to increasingly suffer, or perhaps become even irrelevant. (E.G., Wiki-ism)
Strange that the beautiful work of centuries of academia has built an information Tower of Babel. And now nothing is clear, and nothing makes sense, and we have lost the foundation we first built on.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Hypocrites
John Kerry asked a question several days ago in a statement that quoted his statement in 1973 in reference to the Vietnam War. This question is a catch phrase among certain people.
"How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"
Yet this is precisely what he would do -- an example again of one of his kind hurting those he claims to help. We establish a timeline for withdrawl, and we have surrendered. But we will keep fighting until that surrender becomes effective.
That is asking several hundred thousand American soldiers to fight for one more year for a mistake -- fight an enemy who has been informed they will win in exactly 13 months. How can you do that to a soldier?
If this war is lost, and if it is a mistake, and you must make an end, then, for pity's sake, end it now. But, as I suspect most of these men do, you know that an end cannot be made of it tomorrow because of the disasterous results, then the war is not lost, and you owe a debt to those who gave their lives to fight on. The gutless will never make a hard call. Instead, they will open the veins of those who depend on them, and let them bleed out slowly. Because it requires a man of courage to either fight like a lion, or face the consequences of a lost fight. The cowards will stand by.
There is only one option.
"How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"
Yet this is precisely what he would do -- an example again of one of his kind hurting those he claims to help. We establish a timeline for withdrawl, and we have surrendered. But we will keep fighting until that surrender becomes effective.
That is asking several hundred thousand American soldiers to fight for one more year for a mistake -- fight an enemy who has been informed they will win in exactly 13 months. How can you do that to a soldier?
If this war is lost, and if it is a mistake, and you must make an end, then, for pity's sake, end it now. But, as I suspect most of these men do, you know that an end cannot be made of it tomorrow because of the disasterous results, then the war is not lost, and you owe a debt to those who gave their lives to fight on. The gutless will never make a hard call. Instead, they will open the veins of those who depend on them, and let them bleed out slowly. Because it requires a man of courage to either fight like a lion, or face the consequences of a lost fight. The cowards will stand by.
There is only one option.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Election Bug
Everybody's got it.
I encourage you all to look into Fred Thompson. He's and Newt are the big Republicans who have not declared, but I believe both of them will. Nationwide, the standings at the moment look something like:
1. Rudy
2. McCain
3. Romney
4. Thompson
5. Newt
But, of course, this is the early part of the game, and so most poll participants are blue-staters, and usually left-leaning GOPers. So the projected polls for the actual realistic standings are more like this:
1. McCain
2. Romney / Thompson
3. Thompson/ Romney
4. Rudy
5. Newt
And so far, in red state straw polls, it's usually a split, with either Thompson or Romney taking the strong lead.
So, I think that everyone should take a good look at Fred Thompson, and read up on his issues. I have enormous respect for him. I still love John McCain, and he probably has a better General Election shot, but in the meantime, I am throwing in behind Fred. He's a good man.
I strongly encourage everyone to steer very clear of Rudy, Romney, and Newt. Rudy should be evident. He's a strong leader, and I think he'd be a reasonably strong internationally-inclined President, but his stand on every single social issue is untennable. Besides the ethical questions of voting for such a man, I think that electing a Republican who is left of center on all social issues and some economic is the worst strategic decision this party could make.
Mitt Romney, while being a great orator, having movie-star looks and charisma, is someone of whom I am highly suspicious. I have no set stand against electing someone who is a Mormon, but electing someone who is a Mormon who was formarly pro-abortion until people starting talking about a possible presidential run back a year or two ago, well, I feel a little bit like we're dealing with a John Kerry -- or a reverse Joe Lieberman.
And Newt....well, nobody wants Newt. He can't win the general.
So look up Thompson. If you watch The Hunt for Red October again, he's the Rear Admiral who commands the carrier (R. Adm. Joshua Painter). And of course, you can see him on Law and Order.
I encourage you all to look into Fred Thompson. He's and Newt are the big Republicans who have not declared, but I believe both of them will. Nationwide, the standings at the moment look something like:
1. Rudy
2. McCain
3. Romney
4. Thompson
5. Newt
But, of course, this is the early part of the game, and so most poll participants are blue-staters, and usually left-leaning GOPers. So the projected polls for the actual realistic standings are more like this:
1. McCain
2. Romney / Thompson
3. Thompson/ Romney
4. Rudy
5. Newt
And so far, in red state straw polls, it's usually a split, with either Thompson or Romney taking the strong lead.
So, I think that everyone should take a good look at Fred Thompson, and read up on his issues. I have enormous respect for him. I still love John McCain, and he probably has a better General Election shot, but in the meantime, I am throwing in behind Fred. He's a good man.
I strongly encourage everyone to steer very clear of Rudy, Romney, and Newt. Rudy should be evident. He's a strong leader, and I think he'd be a reasonably strong internationally-inclined President, but his stand on every single social issue is untennable. Besides the ethical questions of voting for such a man, I think that electing a Republican who is left of center on all social issues and some economic is the worst strategic decision this party could make.
Mitt Romney, while being a great orator, having movie-star looks and charisma, is someone of whom I am highly suspicious. I have no set stand against electing someone who is a Mormon, but electing someone who is a Mormon who was formarly pro-abortion until people starting talking about a possible presidential run back a year or two ago, well, I feel a little bit like we're dealing with a John Kerry -- or a reverse Joe Lieberman.
And Newt....well, nobody wants Newt. He can't win the general.
So look up Thompson. If you watch The Hunt for Red October again, he's the Rear Admiral who commands the carrier (R. Adm. Joshua Painter). And of course, you can see him on Law and Order.
A Bewildered Listener
We seem, as a culture, to be gradually disqualifying certain academic pursuits in precisely the wrong order. First to go was the Science of sciences -- philosophy. It has been wholeheartedly cast out of the realm of proper academia and is now viewed as a trivial pursuit for use in poetry, in axioms on the sides of coffee cups, and on The View. Shortly thereafter, the sciences of humanities were derailed then sidelined -- still pursued, yes, but rather condescendingly. And now, science proper has become so self-righteous and puffed up that it has begun to dismantle itself. See the following:
I, of course, am no physicist, but I believe that many dimwits would be able to see the problems in what I heard this morning on PRI (NPR). The program host was interviewing various scientists about everything from time travel to space shuttles to science fiction. Lastly, a British professor was interviewed about the so-called anthropic principle.
The idea was presented as the fact that every single physical law that we encounter in the universe is completely tuned for human existence, and that all the history of the universe has fashioned itself for the perfect developement of life -- specifically human life. As the professor pointed out, the standard scientific answer for this bizarre coinky-dink is the weak anthropic principle, i.e., "That's just the way it is. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here." The professor pointed out that this is no answer at all.
Ah, I though, here's a man who is not afraid to recognize the glaring truth of the universe.
Wrong.
What followed was a half hour of the most absurdly weird set of hypotheses on the origins of the anthropic principle might be. It came down to three answers.
First, the professor flew in the face of all logic and decided to change the rules of the argument to suit the outcome as he viewed it. This also, I think, requires some sketchy math. If you view the way the universe is as a matter of odds, then our universe is a one in quadrillions phenomenon. Quadrillions, in fact, are much to small of numbers. It possibly extends beyond where human numbers can quantify. So how can we fix this? Let's up the number of entries. If we make a quadrillion entries, then we're bound to have a perfect universe in there somehow. In short the professor claims that there are possibly trillions and trillions of universes out there, and we just happen to be the one that meshes with life. This is nothing but fantasy. We can pull any hypothesis out of thin air, and it becomes an exciting scientific theory. But the glaring truth on the face of things should be suppressed.
The second theory was even more ridiculous. The quantam theory is that essentially, these are fluid, changeable physical laws, and there is clear intentionality in the universe. Therefore, we can only assume that humans develop to such a point that someday, in the future, they will figure out how to manipulate space and time, and establish the origins of their own universe. ?????????
And then, the last theory is the pure theory of compulsion. That something in the universe drives itself to life. And that's all there is to it. This one teeters on the brink of intelligent design, and the host asked the professor if God fit into the picture, to which the professor replied that many might believe so, but that would be unscientific, and purely religious.
I wonder, what is so unscientific about that? And what is so scientific about science?
The professor also engaged in one of the most frustrating of logical contradictions. He said that if there was something scientific behind Intelligent Design (as opposed to his theories, which I suppose are just bursting with evidence) then it would be no problem. But apparently, we know there is no science in intelligent design. It's religion.
This is along the lines of saying that we'll believe O.J. was the killer the day that we see some hard evidence. The prosocutor brings out the DNA samples. Oh, we say, that can't be O.J.'s DNA -- he wasn't there, remember?
I, of course, am no physicist, but I believe that many dimwits would be able to see the problems in what I heard this morning on PRI (NPR). The program host was interviewing various scientists about everything from time travel to space shuttles to science fiction. Lastly, a British professor was interviewed about the so-called anthropic principle.
The idea was presented as the fact that every single physical law that we encounter in the universe is completely tuned for human existence, and that all the history of the universe has fashioned itself for the perfect developement of life -- specifically human life. As the professor pointed out, the standard scientific answer for this bizarre coinky-dink is the weak anthropic principle, i.e., "That's just the way it is. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here." The professor pointed out that this is no answer at all.
Ah, I though, here's a man who is not afraid to recognize the glaring truth of the universe.
Wrong.
What followed was a half hour of the most absurdly weird set of hypotheses on the origins of the anthropic principle might be. It came down to three answers.
First, the professor flew in the face of all logic and decided to change the rules of the argument to suit the outcome as he viewed it. This also, I think, requires some sketchy math. If you view the way the universe is as a matter of odds, then our universe is a one in quadrillions phenomenon. Quadrillions, in fact, are much to small of numbers. It possibly extends beyond where human numbers can quantify. So how can we fix this? Let's up the number of entries. If we make a quadrillion entries, then we're bound to have a perfect universe in there somehow. In short the professor claims that there are possibly trillions and trillions of universes out there, and we just happen to be the one that meshes with life. This is nothing but fantasy. We can pull any hypothesis out of thin air, and it becomes an exciting scientific theory. But the glaring truth on the face of things should be suppressed.
The second theory was even more ridiculous. The quantam theory is that essentially, these are fluid, changeable physical laws, and there is clear intentionality in the universe. Therefore, we can only assume that humans develop to such a point that someday, in the future, they will figure out how to manipulate space and time, and establish the origins of their own universe. ?????????
And then, the last theory is the pure theory of compulsion. That something in the universe drives itself to life. And that's all there is to it. This one teeters on the brink of intelligent design, and the host asked the professor if God fit into the picture, to which the professor replied that many might believe so, but that would be unscientific, and purely religious.
I wonder, what is so unscientific about that? And what is so scientific about science?
The professor also engaged in one of the most frustrating of logical contradictions. He said that if there was something scientific behind Intelligent Design (as opposed to his theories, which I suppose are just bursting with evidence) then it would be no problem. But apparently, we know there is no science in intelligent design. It's religion.
This is along the lines of saying that we'll believe O.J. was the killer the day that we see some hard evidence. The prosocutor brings out the DNA samples. Oh, we say, that can't be O.J.'s DNA -- he wasn't there, remember?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Holidays
Like Christmas or Easter, say.
Why do the great majority observe them? It is beyond any kind of rational thought that most men and women today observe the customs and signs of Christmas, however commercial they may be for them. It absolutely defies logic, and mystifies me. And it seems incredibly sad.
They ought not to -- and they certainly seem to ultimatly do it to their detriment. It's like a drunken Friday; they go out, they spend, they lose their heads, they end up with a mix of longing for something that is gradually slipping through their fingers, and then they seem to end with nothing but incredible pain, and a wrecked body, mind, and soul.
And it seems to me that for them, neither ceasing nor carrying on is a real option. Because they have none. It will always be empty without it, and it will always be empty with. And if, for a moment, so many of those lost in the mad frenzy of their party stop, and look at themselves, they find something so horrible and a revulsion so powerful that the only way to respond is to continue dancing the ridiculous, irrational dance.
They will keep on observing the signs lifelessly, drowning, and then one way or another, some day, they will realize why.
Why do the great majority observe them? It is beyond any kind of rational thought that most men and women today observe the customs and signs of Christmas, however commercial they may be for them. It absolutely defies logic, and mystifies me. And it seems incredibly sad.
They ought not to -- and they certainly seem to ultimatly do it to their detriment. It's like a drunken Friday; they go out, they spend, they lose their heads, they end up with a mix of longing for something that is gradually slipping through their fingers, and then they seem to end with nothing but incredible pain, and a wrecked body, mind, and soul.
And it seems to me that for them, neither ceasing nor carrying on is a real option. Because they have none. It will always be empty without it, and it will always be empty with. And if, for a moment, so many of those lost in the mad frenzy of their party stop, and look at themselves, they find something so horrible and a revulsion so powerful that the only way to respond is to continue dancing the ridiculous, irrational dance.
They will keep on observing the signs lifelessly, drowning, and then one way or another, some day, they will realize why.
A Touch of Hematoma
Hematoma is a good word. Hematoma. I like to say it. Hematoma. Hematoma.
I have a Hematoma. It's a bruise, really. So there I was, for real, today -- slamming my hand between two immesurably hard things (things very probably measurably hard -- but my hand was immeasurably softer). Lo! In about 5 hot seconds, there was a lovely shade of -- what was it? Something between lilac and Tyrian Purple with a touch of magenta about the edges -- spreading visibly across the palm, heel and thumb of my hand. Also, it swelled up like a cow's udder, quickly becoming cushiony -- even a bit spongy and doughy.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
It would appear that I have not suffered a traditional bruise -- the smashing and mashing of various surface vascular midgets, resulting in subcutaneous capillarial sanguination. Nor did I enjoy the cool ooze of veinous drippage. I believe this is none other than a traumatized Ulner or even branch thereof. Yes, pretties. Arterial.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
Shantih Shantih Shantih
I have a Hematoma. It's a bruise, really. So there I was, for real, today -- slamming my hand between two immesurably hard things (things very probably measurably hard -- but my hand was immeasurably softer). Lo! In about 5 hot seconds, there was a lovely shade of -- what was it? Something between lilac and Tyrian Purple with a touch of magenta about the edges -- spreading visibly across the palm, heel and thumb of my hand. Also, it swelled up like a cow's udder, quickly becoming cushiony -- even a bit spongy and doughy.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
It would appear that I have not suffered a traditional bruise -- the smashing and mashing of various surface vascular midgets, resulting in subcutaneous capillarial sanguination. Nor did I enjoy the cool ooze of veinous drippage. I believe this is none other than a traumatized Ulner or even branch thereof. Yes, pretties. Arterial.
Hematoma. Hematoma. Hematoma.
Shantih Shantih Shantih
Monday, April 2, 2007
A Puncheon of Rum
I chanced to be seated in an easy chair in the midst of a lush wood on Friday, with a scruptious velarium of oaks and pines suitably posited above, enjoying a bit of good quiet and the quite propitious weather. I devoured a thoroughly enjoyable volume, which was nothing less than a delicate literary comestible, and happened upon a story that was thoroghly less than pedestrian.
I read Poe often, and scarecly find him other than thoroughly macabre and cadaverous; yet his unnatural style is readable and fantastic.
So it was that I discoverd The Angel of the Odd, a story by Poe. It is, in fact, the purest and most delightful comedy.
Read it.
Or you will be afflicted by the most putrifying disease -- even so! -- and your last thoughts will be as you see in the afterlife strange demons declaring your death -- before your very eyes they will announce your doom!
I read Poe often, and scarecly find him other than thoroughly macabre and cadaverous; yet his unnatural style is readable and fantastic.
So it was that I discoverd The Angel of the Odd, a story by Poe. It is, in fact, the purest and most delightful comedy.
Read it.
Or you will be afflicted by the most putrifying disease -- even so! -- and your last thoughts will be as you see in the afterlife strange demons declaring your death -- before your very eyes they will announce your doom!
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Music of the Spheres
I had a rather peculiar dream last night. It reminded me of Dante and Mr. Callihan.
I dreamt I was the team leader on a team of 5 Classic scholars and scientists, who began mapping the various distances, orbits, and courses of all the planets and stars that we could reasonably accurately measure. We worked for 5 years to plot all this data, and then began to project these courses as far forward into the future, and as far back into history as was reasonably probable. We based this data on the so-called "Meridian," a huge span which covered the time when the data was captured.
The second half of the project that I dreamed was the conversion of these equations -- the courses of the planets and stars -- into data which represented sound waves. The data was first translated, then condensed to produce reasonable sound waves. These were loaded into a massive database, consisting of some millions of sound wave files, condensed to make a file of only 3 minutes. Three minutes was condensed from the millions of years that the waves actually covered.
We called this database the "Meridian audiograph."
The last task was to begin to play the sound waves, using advanced audio equipment. Even condensed, the beginning was incredible and eerie sounds at the highest and lowest pitches, all creating a chilling mass of sounds. But as the audiograph moved towards the meridian point, the sounds began to gradually blend, and formed music that began to be more and more deliberate and crafted.
I dreamt I was the team leader on a team of 5 Classic scholars and scientists, who began mapping the various distances, orbits, and courses of all the planets and stars that we could reasonably accurately measure. We worked for 5 years to plot all this data, and then began to project these courses as far forward into the future, and as far back into history as was reasonably probable. We based this data on the so-called "Meridian," a huge span which covered the time when the data was captured.
The second half of the project that I dreamed was the conversion of these equations -- the courses of the planets and stars -- into data which represented sound waves. The data was first translated, then condensed to produce reasonable sound waves. These were loaded into a massive database, consisting of some millions of sound wave files, condensed to make a file of only 3 minutes. Three minutes was condensed from the millions of years that the waves actually covered.
We called this database the "Meridian audiograph."
The last task was to begin to play the sound waves, using advanced audio equipment. Even condensed, the beginning was incredible and eerie sounds at the highest and lowest pitches, all creating a chilling mass of sounds. But as the audiograph moved towards the meridian point, the sounds began to gradually blend, and formed music that began to be more and more deliberate and crafted.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Heretic
This is from an Al-Jazeera interview with Wafa Sultan, an Arab psychiatrist living in L.A. It is very compelling, particularly at the end. This is a translation of the transcript, which is unfortunate -- the Arabic she uses is very dramatic, rhythmic, and compelling.
-A
The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
note: "people of the book" is an Islamic term, used derisively, for Jews and Christians -- those who have received part of scripture, but do not believe.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.
The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.
The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
-A
The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
note: "people of the book" is an Islamic term, used derisively, for Jews and Christians -- those who have received part of scripture, but do not believe.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.
The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.
The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
A Different Phase
Blair's claim that he is ready for "a different phase" in resolving the hostage crisis if diplomacy fails is ominous and strong. The U.S. is now conducting major exercises off the Iranian coast. The situation looks interesting, to say the least.
In short, what Blair means is this: Capturing Iranian agents who are shooting at, or planting bombs against coalition forces in Iraq is quite different from what is happening here. The encroachment of another nation's territory in order to capture troops operating there is something done by nations at war.
If the Islamic Republic wishes that a state of war exist between them and Britain or the U.S., they need only continue on course.
In short, what Blair means is this: Capturing Iranian agents who are shooting at, or planting bombs against coalition forces in Iraq is quite different from what is happening here. The encroachment of another nation's territory in order to capture troops operating there is something done by nations at war.
If the Islamic Republic wishes that a state of war exist between them and Britain or the U.S., they need only continue on course.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Curiosity upon Curiosity
I enjoyed watching the Senator from my home state, Wayne Allard, address the congress last night. He is not a good speaker by any stretch of the imagination; however, he raises good points.
Yesterday, the Democratic addendums to the Bush Budget came out. After the famous first 100 hours, so full of talk of "curbing Government's appetite," "Fiscal responsibility," and the like, they amazingly have proposed increasing the budget spending by $146 Billion. That is drastic. That means two other interesting things: the government must raise Federal taxes by 3%, the biggest single tax raise in history, and that instead of a declining deficit, as the Bush budget proposes, this will increase the deficit by 3 trillion dollars in the same number of years.
Amazing.
So much for the Bush tax cuts -- the famous cuts that helped "the wealthiest 1 %"
The wealthiest 1% in America pay 37% of the nation's taxes. The wealthiest 5% pay 57%. More than half. And the liberals hurt those they pretend to help, because the poor and middle class are not helped nearly as much by taxing the rich more. In fact, the business and industry of America is what builds up the poor and the middle class.
America's business is business, and jobs come from the same. Why hurt businesses, which provide income, by promising to tax the rich guy more than you? Never mind it may cost you your job, increase inflation (or, heaven forbid, deflation), and undermine the economy at large.
Yesterday, the Democratic addendums to the Bush Budget came out. After the famous first 100 hours, so full of talk of "curbing Government's appetite," "Fiscal responsibility," and the like, they amazingly have proposed increasing the budget spending by $146 Billion. That is drastic. That means two other interesting things: the government must raise Federal taxes by 3%, the biggest single tax raise in history, and that instead of a declining deficit, as the Bush budget proposes, this will increase the deficit by 3 trillion dollars in the same number of years.
Amazing.
So much for the Bush tax cuts -- the famous cuts that helped "the wealthiest 1 %"
The wealthiest 1% in America pay 37% of the nation's taxes. The wealthiest 5% pay 57%. More than half. And the liberals hurt those they pretend to help, because the poor and middle class are not helped nearly as much by taxing the rich more. In fact, the business and industry of America is what builds up the poor and the middle class.
America's business is business, and jobs come from the same. Why hurt businesses, which provide income, by promising to tax the rich guy more than you? Never mind it may cost you your job, increase inflation (or, heaven forbid, deflation), and undermine the economy at large.
The Four Genever seasons
A Sumptuousness in Four Acts:
Autumn:
The Martini - brisk and heavy
Like wet branches or crushed leaves
Lying beneath dry trees -- the way of all life:
Still living, but with sour edge of mortality
Blusterous, yet solemn --
Brooding and dangerous.
*
Winter:
Pink Gin - A soft name,
With the harsh bite and bitterness
of a winter evening. Savage cold
like some wrought steel or iron mould,
Bluing with the ice and frost.
But life curls beneath the death,
With spice and warmth cradling
Deep inside.
*
Spring:
Tonic with Gin - As fresh and peated
As a young garden, with songs of sprung herbs,
And germination. Grass crushed to green,
Warm rains, warmer airs open flowers,
Wafting anise, coriander to dazzling blue.
*
Summer:
Married Gin with Juice - Languid and hazy,
Lush with all the ripeness that the Summer Sun matures.
Colored, dappled deep purples, crimsons, orange and white,
Fresh with life, yet still, silent, torpid,
As a quiet afternoon, in the shaded light,
Drifting in a hammock, stirred only
By a gentle breath of wind.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
What are you reading, my lord?
An etymological fancy. Since I used the word Brouhaha earlier, I was pleased to find its derivation.
In medieval theater, the prominance of the Devil as a character was a common motif, especially when the devil appeared disguised as a member of the Clergy. A common earmark, or character stamp, would be the peculiar exclamations of the representative devil when he appears. "Brou ha ha!"
This is, in fact, intended as a perversion (perhaps like a Shibboleth) of something that a Clergyman, being from the type of a Levite, might say "Baruch Ha-ba (be-eshm adona-i)," or "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD."
This first part is perverted to "Brou, Haha!" -- an self-incriminating exclamation of evil masked as good, signifying clamorousness, catastrophe, or a noisy facade (much ado).
In medieval theater, the prominance of the Devil as a character was a common motif, especially when the devil appeared disguised as a member of the Clergy. A common earmark, or character stamp, would be the peculiar exclamations of the representative devil when he appears. "Brou ha ha!"
This is, in fact, intended as a perversion (perhaps like a Shibboleth) of something that a Clergyman, being from the type of a Levite, might say "Baruch Ha-ba (be-eshm adona-i)," or "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD."
This first part is perverted to "Brou, Haha!" -- an self-incriminating exclamation of evil masked as good, signifying clamorousness, catastrophe, or a noisy facade (much ado).
Brou, Ha! Ha!
And again, manufactured politics drives the inexorable dismantling of the Bush presidency.
The latest purturbation of the media and the liberal wings of government is over the firing of some several U.S. attorneys by the D of Jus.
This is entirely a manufactured "scandal."
U.S. attorneys are not civil servants. They serve, as has been pointed out, as members of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. Their hiring and firing is always political. And, in the end, it seems that the worst one can say about the firing of these attorneys (all appointed by Bush himself), is that they were fired for not pursuing the agenda of the administration when instructed to do so, and that room needed to be made for more attorneys to have this on their resume.
They were asked to pursue an agenda, certainly, which is their job. They were never asked to produce a certain result, or to sway the legal process towards some party or wing.
Certainly, nothing can be said to be remotely scandelous about this issue when faced with the firing of not 8, but all 93 U.S. attorneys. This was done in 1993 by Bill Clinton. None were his appointees. Which is more political? I don't claim even Clinton was wrong. But the double standard is.
The latest purturbation of the media and the liberal wings of government is over the firing of some several U.S. attorneys by the D of Jus.
This is entirely a manufactured "scandal."
U.S. attorneys are not civil servants. They serve, as has been pointed out, as members of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. Their hiring and firing is always political. And, in the end, it seems that the worst one can say about the firing of these attorneys (all appointed by Bush himself), is that they were fired for not pursuing the agenda of the administration when instructed to do so, and that room needed to be made for more attorneys to have this on their resume.
They were asked to pursue an agenda, certainly, which is their job. They were never asked to produce a certain result, or to sway the legal process towards some party or wing.
Certainly, nothing can be said to be remotely scandelous about this issue when faced with the firing of not 8, but all 93 U.S. attorneys. This was done in 1993 by Bill Clinton. None were his appointees. Which is more political? I don't claim even Clinton was wrong. But the double standard is.
Monday, March 19, 2007
A Real Somethingness
I commend to you, with high regard, Doug Wilson's recent blog refutation, chapter by chapter, of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=64
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=64
Sub-Prime Time
Since I'm going to be buying a house sometime in the next year or two, I have been watching the unraveling of the lower band of the mortgage/lending world over the past few weeks with great interest. (Hah. Great Interest. Funny.)
I'm sure Nate knows much more about this than I, but the whole thing does fascinate me. We have a nation whose financial system is driven by debt -- and this can be ok. But now into the third generation of Americans who don't understand the primal law of a credit system, and problems are rampant. That law is a paradox: you cannot go into debt to buy something you cannot afford.
But that's only a paradox to those who are now in trouble. "Well, what's the point of going into debt if you can already afford it?" Exactly.
Clearly, no one can just go buy a house with cash, unless you're a Saudi prince. But what I mean is that if something is out of your reach, don't reach for it. You're going to fall.
We can't say no to something. We need a couch, a table, a matress, a car, a house, etc. We don't know the future, and in many cases, the present isn't promising. But we buy the stuff anyway. We can't tell ourselves no. If we don't learn to appreciate the idea of scarcity, we're really in trouble.
If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. And if you have to really shuffle to make it work in the first several payment periods, you shouldn't do it.
Learn to go without things. It's ridiculously simple.
I'm sure Nate knows much more about this than I, but the whole thing does fascinate me. We have a nation whose financial system is driven by debt -- and this can be ok. But now into the third generation of Americans who don't understand the primal law of a credit system, and problems are rampant. That law is a paradox: you cannot go into debt to buy something you cannot afford.
But that's only a paradox to those who are now in trouble. "Well, what's the point of going into debt if you can already afford it?" Exactly.
Clearly, no one can just go buy a house with cash, unless you're a Saudi prince. But what I mean is that if something is out of your reach, don't reach for it. You're going to fall.
We can't say no to something. We need a couch, a table, a matress, a car, a house, etc. We don't know the future, and in many cases, the present isn't promising. But we buy the stuff anyway. We can't tell ourselves no. If we don't learn to appreciate the idea of scarcity, we're really in trouble.
If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. And if you have to really shuffle to make it work in the first several payment periods, you shouldn't do it.
Learn to go without things. It's ridiculously simple.
Old Yeller
I am caught off-guard sometimes by what the constant barrage of media has made me think. At these times I have to go back and somewhat re-trace a more reasonable line of argument on certain things. And going back to basics is useful.
Let as assume that most people can take the reasonable stand that the causes of the war can no longer be an issue. We are there, and it is common fact.
What are we weary of in Iraq?
Is it the budget, and the economic crisis that has ensued? I don't believe it is. The American people have never sacrificed less, or been called upon to sacrifice less, than in this conflict. Many point out that perhaps we should have been called upon more. But if that is the greatest fault of the leaders, I question the necessity of the anti-war vigor. The economy is not seeing its finest days, but neither is it seeing its worst, by any means. Families are not going hungry -- the average American, truth be told, is in fact feeling no direct impact of the war budget.
Are we weary of the cost of life? This is more reasonable, and every American should feel the loss of every life gravely and deeply. But this itself hardly seems to be the real weariness. Each lost life is tragic, but it alone seems to falter as an objection. Again, the American people -- American mothers and families -- have never given less in time of war. That does not diminish their sacrifice, for those who have made it, but I am extremely sceptical of the war opposition members who claim this as their agenda. Their brutish attacks and politicking seem to merit them a title less noble than "peace activists." Perhaps the irony of "peace mongers" would suffice.
What remains?
Have we grown weary of failures? I think so. I think that if all politics were thrown aside, then this would be the remaining reason.
When in American history have we laid down our arms because we were weary of a determined enemy? Any war, short and decisive, or protracted and difficult, must be undertaken, continued, and ended only upon the determination of victory achieved. Principles of just war have always maintained that victory is central to the Just War.
The very real difficulties in Iraq should only result in redoubled efforts. Anything else is senseless. Anything else is cowardice, and cowardice has become an American problem.
The only weariness that I believe might end the war justifiably, though bitterly, would be weariness at the immature and devestating bankruptcy of the Iraqi people. This is not racism -- yet because of cultural poisoning by the determined liars of Shi'a Islam, there comes a point where the stagnation of the Iraqis may lead us to shake the dust from our sandels, and leave them to their doom. Yet this time is not yet near, I believe, and I think that even in that case, it would be difficult to say that we were not simply facing a strong enemy. If that were the case, we must stay and fight. And even in that case, the question of our own safety and future arise.
If we lose this battle, the specter of defiant Shi'a, and of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, and the poisonous thugs of Sunni extremism -- the former truly becoming a world symbol in many nations' eyes; the latter, a brutal and violent mafia -- will have done what the West could not do, stabilizing the region, and perhaps have defeated the West in battle while doing it.
Let as assume that most people can take the reasonable stand that the causes of the war can no longer be an issue. We are there, and it is common fact.
What are we weary of in Iraq?
Is it the budget, and the economic crisis that has ensued? I don't believe it is. The American people have never sacrificed less, or been called upon to sacrifice less, than in this conflict. Many point out that perhaps we should have been called upon more. But if that is the greatest fault of the leaders, I question the necessity of the anti-war vigor. The economy is not seeing its finest days, but neither is it seeing its worst, by any means. Families are not going hungry -- the average American, truth be told, is in fact feeling no direct impact of the war budget.
Are we weary of the cost of life? This is more reasonable, and every American should feel the loss of every life gravely and deeply. But this itself hardly seems to be the real weariness. Each lost life is tragic, but it alone seems to falter as an objection. Again, the American people -- American mothers and families -- have never given less in time of war. That does not diminish their sacrifice, for those who have made it, but I am extremely sceptical of the war opposition members who claim this as their agenda. Their brutish attacks and politicking seem to merit them a title less noble than "peace activists." Perhaps the irony of "peace mongers" would suffice.
What remains?
Have we grown weary of failures? I think so. I think that if all politics were thrown aside, then this would be the remaining reason.
When in American history have we laid down our arms because we were weary of a determined enemy? Any war, short and decisive, or protracted and difficult, must be undertaken, continued, and ended only upon the determination of victory achieved. Principles of just war have always maintained that victory is central to the Just War.
The very real difficulties in Iraq should only result in redoubled efforts. Anything else is senseless. Anything else is cowardice, and cowardice has become an American problem.
The only weariness that I believe might end the war justifiably, though bitterly, would be weariness at the immature and devestating bankruptcy of the Iraqi people. This is not racism -- yet because of cultural poisoning by the determined liars of Shi'a Islam, there comes a point where the stagnation of the Iraqis may lead us to shake the dust from our sandels, and leave them to their doom. Yet this time is not yet near, I believe, and I think that even in that case, it would be difficult to say that we were not simply facing a strong enemy. If that were the case, we must stay and fight. And even in that case, the question of our own safety and future arise.
If we lose this battle, the specter of defiant Shi'a, and of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, and the poisonous thugs of Sunni extremism -- the former truly becoming a world symbol in many nations' eyes; the latter, a brutal and violent mafia -- will have done what the West could not do, stabilizing the region, and perhaps have defeated the West in battle while doing it.
Friday, March 16, 2007
For St. Patrick's Day
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the judgment of Doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.
I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.
I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.
I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.
Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.
(St. Patrick)
The Center Cannot Hold
I am a firm believer in American exceptionalism, and I do not go to work each day to watch over, or participate in, the dissolution or degredation of American power.
The situation we are in today, particularly in relation to the conflict in Iraq, is serious, and full of problems and mistakes which have been made. The debate continues to be the justification for the war in Iraq -- a debate which utterly baffles me. These are debates about decisions and actions in the perfect tense; they have been made. While those decisions and actions and mistakes may continue to have an intense bearing on the future course, they cannot be unmade in the perfect tense, and unmaking them in the present will not accomplish what not having made them at all might.
I do indeed believe mistakes have been made -- I think that perhaps the war was not the right decision at the time it arose. I still fall far short of judging the conscience or even the decision-making ability of leaders like President Bush. We have, as we always do, a new perspective, and that level of decision-making is far above my pay grade, or that of most critics. But I do believe that mistakes have been made; about this, there is no question.
American power, dominance, and hegemony have been facts for almost a century now, rising out of the First World War. And for much of that time, they acted as cement in solidifying the world, or at least, the West. Even in the face of a bipolar hegemony between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. was always recognized by most of the world as representing freedom, and holding the moral authority. Three things have always ensured this dominance.
First, a strict moral conscience and ideals of morality, freedom, and goodwill toward other nations. Second, a firm economic superiority as the World's greatest market. And lastly, an undeniable and awesome superiority of pseudo-political force and military strength.
These three things were at an apex following September 11th, and I think that in many ways, the situation in Iraq has severely weakened these three. This is not simply the fault of the government or the President. There are so many social shortcomings and failings right now that contribute -- not the least of which, the complete lack of political will of the people, the same lack that cost us a war in 1975 that had been won in 1974. These things are significant and grave, but not what I'm talking about.
Most importantly, the third of these things, our military superiority, has been squandered. This is not a shortcoming of the military, which as an institution is the finest fighting force in the world, and the ferocity with which we have overwhelmed terrorists in Iraq is awesome. But we cannot continually fight a surgical war, or one for which political reason dictates economy of force. Any time in history in which political will has caused the use of limited force, defeat has quickly followed. Those we are fighting are astute, and as aware of this as we are. As the political discontent with the war continues, their cries of victory are stronger. Ultimately, this is not about our 3,000 dead compared to their 100,000. They can still win.
Perhaps because of these factors, the war should never have begun. Yet it began. And it is alarming to me that few in the U.S. see the only possible strategy that we now must follow. John McCain has said the same thing. Victory continues to be the only course. That does not mean stay in Iraq until 2020 with little improvement. It means that we must abandon the notion of limited force and apply an overwhelming and total dedication of the nations resources into the fight. This will mean many, many more lives, and a budget that will be staggering -- that may hurt the economy, and may finally mean tangible sacrifices of the American people. But it is absolutely essential for the future of this nation.
If not, this conflict will forever be the harbinger of the American decline.
The situation we are in today, particularly in relation to the conflict in Iraq, is serious, and full of problems and mistakes which have been made. The debate continues to be the justification for the war in Iraq -- a debate which utterly baffles me. These are debates about decisions and actions in the perfect tense; they have been made. While those decisions and actions and mistakes may continue to have an intense bearing on the future course, they cannot be unmade in the perfect tense, and unmaking them in the present will not accomplish what not having made them at all might.
I do indeed believe mistakes have been made -- I think that perhaps the war was not the right decision at the time it arose. I still fall far short of judging the conscience or even the decision-making ability of leaders like President Bush. We have, as we always do, a new perspective, and that level of decision-making is far above my pay grade, or that of most critics. But I do believe that mistakes have been made; about this, there is no question.
American power, dominance, and hegemony have been facts for almost a century now, rising out of the First World War. And for much of that time, they acted as cement in solidifying the world, or at least, the West. Even in the face of a bipolar hegemony between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. was always recognized by most of the world as representing freedom, and holding the moral authority. Three things have always ensured this dominance.
First, a strict moral conscience and ideals of morality, freedom, and goodwill toward other nations. Second, a firm economic superiority as the World's greatest market. And lastly, an undeniable and awesome superiority of pseudo-political force and military strength.
These three things were at an apex following September 11th, and I think that in many ways, the situation in Iraq has severely weakened these three. This is not simply the fault of the government or the President. There are so many social shortcomings and failings right now that contribute -- not the least of which, the complete lack of political will of the people, the same lack that cost us a war in 1975 that had been won in 1974. These things are significant and grave, but not what I'm talking about.
Most importantly, the third of these things, our military superiority, has been squandered. This is not a shortcoming of the military, which as an institution is the finest fighting force in the world, and the ferocity with which we have overwhelmed terrorists in Iraq is awesome. But we cannot continually fight a surgical war, or one for which political reason dictates economy of force. Any time in history in which political will has caused the use of limited force, defeat has quickly followed. Those we are fighting are astute, and as aware of this as we are. As the political discontent with the war continues, their cries of victory are stronger. Ultimately, this is not about our 3,000 dead compared to their 100,000. They can still win.
Perhaps because of these factors, the war should never have begun. Yet it began. And it is alarming to me that few in the U.S. see the only possible strategy that we now must follow. John McCain has said the same thing. Victory continues to be the only course. That does not mean stay in Iraq until 2020 with little improvement. It means that we must abandon the notion of limited force and apply an overwhelming and total dedication of the nations resources into the fight. This will mean many, many more lives, and a budget that will be staggering -- that may hurt the economy, and may finally mean tangible sacrifices of the American people. But it is absolutely essential for the future of this nation.
If not, this conflict will forever be the harbinger of the American decline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
