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.
Friday, June 29, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
