Blithering Idiot

2012-01-11T16:45:00.002-05:00

Reawakening - wow, it's been so long since I've posted, I'm not sure where to begin. I want to write about Judge Bellow's decision on the "multi-church litigation" - however, it make take a few days. I'll start now and maybe finish this weekend.

2010-02-21T19:49:00.001-05:00

Yes, I am alive.

No, I have not been able to blog for quite some time. I hope to come back again, one day.

2009-01-28T12:41:00.000-05:00

Gerson on the Speech.

From CT, reprinted here (because it will disappear):

Michael Gerson: Obama's Speech Rhetorically Flat, but Ideologically Interesting
A former presidential speechwriter examines President Obama's inaugural address.
Interview by Sarah Pulliam in Washington, D.C. | posted 1/23/2009 04:19PM

Former speechwriter Michael Gerson was quick to parse President Obama's speech to the nation on Tuesday, calling it "rhetorically flat" but "quite interesting from an ideological perspective." Gerson's pen was behind President George W. Bush's inaugural addresses in 2001 and 2005, and in preparation, he studied every single presidential inaugural address in American history.

Now a columnist for the Washington Post, Gerson spoke with Christianity Today yesterday about Obama's inaugural address, religious references, and whether he thinks an evangelical should serve in the new administration.

What did you think of the inauguration?

I thought it was surprising. I came to Obama's speech in many ways expecting something that would be rhetorically masterful and maybe ideologically shallow, because of his ideological background, and we got something very different from that.

I thought it was rhetorically flat, uninteresting from a literary perspective, but quite interesting from an ideological perspective. He set out some interesting themes about political pragmatism. It was one of the strongest defenses of pragmatism against ideology in any inaugural address that I can recall. I think that his assurances on national security issues were pretty reassuring. He recognized that we're in a war and talked about defeating our enemies and talked about soft power a little bit with the fight against global poverty — I thought all those things were good. And then his closing theme of renewing America by returning to its oldest values and virtues — he used the word "virtues" — is a traditional inaugural theme, but I think a very good one.

He talked about loyalty, and duty, and responsibility, among other things, and I think that's both an effective message and an important one. In fact it's been the message of most of America's great progressive leaders, whether it's Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, they always talk about recreating our country by returning to its oldest and deepest values. So that was a good theme. But I just wish the speech itself had been better.

What was missing rhetorically?

I found some of the phrasing odd when they tried to reach they did not reach effectively for memorable phrases. The use of the word 'swill' is very odd in the speech. I found a lot of use of cliché language, "gathering storms" and "children's children," and things you would expect to find in a House floor speech. There were some nice moments, but it was very uneven in its quality.

I don't think it made that much difference to the two million people on the Mall — they were into the moment, and I don't think the speech was terrible, but it was a missed opportunity. This was an unbelievably historic moment, and you look for example at the end of that speech, at the mentioning of Valley Forge and those values, and that's fine, but it could have literally been given by any president in American history. There was nothing specific to the moment, nothing that made it the summary of this great, extraordinary cultural progress culminating in an African American president. Maybe he did that on purpose, maybe he didn't want that to be the rhetorical culmination of much of American history. Maybe he just wanted to lower his sights and be less ambitious. But it's hard for me to be a fan of that as a fan of rhetoric.

How does this compare to his campaign speeches?

I think he rose in the Democratic Party because of some very fine speeches that he gave, his speech on the night of his Iowa victory I thought was a brilliant speech. His race speech in Philadelphia I thought was a serious speech, a serious and interesting speech. But now he's given two speeches in the most high profile settings: his convention speech, which was actually very poor — it was unbelievably typical — and now his inaugural speech, which was not that bad, but it wasn't equal to the moment. Somebody's going to eventually notice that this man who has risen because of his speaking ability has not risen to the moment in some very important historical contexts.

How did you prepare for President Bush's inaugural addresses?

I read every single inaugural in American history when I was preparing for the first one in 2001. There were some weak ones, but there was some marvelous rhetoric as well. The story of America is, in many ways, the story of this extraordinary founding flaw, that we were a nation dedicated to liberty that was also a prison for millions of people. It explains the arguments at the constitutional convention, the run-up to a bloody Civil War, reconstruction, civil rights, and in 45 years we've gone from a circumstance in which when Martin Luther King spoke in 1963 civil rights workers were murdered, where African Americans with doctorate degrees where denied the right to vote because of so-called literacy questions that asked how many bubbles are in a bar of soap and how many jellybeans are there in a jar. That is the central story of American history and one of the dramatic stories in world history, the progress we've made. Obama did nothing to summarize that moment. He made one reference to his father, if he had been here 50 or 60 years ago he might have been denied service. Which I thought was fine, but it needed ambitious rhetorical summary and he purposely did not do it.

What about Rick Warren and Lowery's prayers?

I think Rick Warren did a great job, but I also think Reverend Lowery did a great job. I was very impressed with him, because for me, who was looking for this kind of summary moment, it was very nice to have one of the large figures from the civil rights era putting his blessing on this moment in American history and to hear the cadences of civil rights rhetoric in his prayer. I know some people found it a bit much; I found it very much a great rhetorical tradition in America, which I wish I had seen a little more of in Obama's speech.

Did you parse Rick Warren's prayer?

Not really. He made a point of using Jesus' name, which I think is a genuine pluralism. Pluralism shouldn't mean that we have these common denominator situations; it means that everybody should have a voice. I thought that was a strong reassertion of that. Warren was appropriately enthusiastic about the moment. My basic view there for all the controversy is it's a biblical mandate to pray for those in authority, and that's what Rick Warren did.

Obama's speech had several religious references. What did you think of them?

He was completely within the tradition of American inaugural speeches. I mean they often have references to scriptural passages. His were 'setting aside childish things,' which I thought was a very effective line, it called attention to one of his great political strengths, which is he seems like an adult. He has a very mature manner. And he also used the phrase still waters, which I thought was interesting. But you know, there's a little bit of a double standard here.

When George W. Bush used scriptural passages they thought it was somehow a threat to the Constitution and when Barack Obama uses them they're normal rhetorical devices. But I thought it was interesting, the one thing that maybe was unprecedented in the speech was the mention of nonbelievers in the litany. That's something other presidents, including George Bush, have done in other speeches, but not an inaugural address. I think it's a recognition of an electoral reality that you've had over the last few decades, a significant growth in an area of voters identified as nonreligious. That was recognition of reality. It didn't bother me at all but it was interesting. So I thought he made fairly good use of religious references.

Does it matter if Obama has any evangelicals in his administration?

I've never really viewed it that somehow you need some quota of evangelicals. I think the policy matters more.

I do know that the Obama transition team has worked pretty closely with Jim Wallis and some other religious leaders in some early stages of policy development. I'm told that their director of the domestic policy council is very open to faith-based ideas and other things.

The encouraging thing is that Obama comes from a community organizer background and at least understands the role of faith and faith-based institutions in our society and you hope that translates broadly in his administration. But we also know there are elements of the Democratic party that are deeply secular and have been highly critical of any recognition or cooperation with the role of faith-based institutions in our public life, and so I think that's probably a struggle within administration. I hope Obama's viewpoint, at least the one he outlined in the campaign, prevails.

2009-01-20T21:15:00.002-05:00

An Inaugural Address.

My own favorite address, as I have mentioned many times before, is Lincoln's Second. Nevertheless, Thomas Jefferson's first, is a meditation in good government. An excerpt:

During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

March 4, 1801

2009-01-02T17:01:00.002-05:00

Calvin's Institutes in a Year. From Princeton Seminary, in honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, a way to read the Institutes in a year. (h/t Jim H.). Personally, I'm going for the audio version.

2008-12-18T06:54:00.005-05:00

Sam Baugh, the Greatest Football Player there ever was.

I picked up the paper and saw that Samuel Adrian "Sammy" Baugh passed from legend into Glory yesterday. Without a doubt, he was the greatest player that football ever saw.

He played both quarterback on offense and safety on defense, plus was the punter for the Washington Redskins. As noted in his Wikipedia entry:

By the time he retired, Baugh set 13 NFL records in three player positions: quarterback, punter, and defensive back.

Two of his records as quarterback still stand: most seasons leading the league in passing (six; tied with Steve Young) and most seasons leading the league with the lowest interception percentage (five). He is also second in highest single-season completion percentage (70.33), most seasons leading the league in yards gained (four) and most seasons leading the league in completion percentage (seven).

As a punter, Baugh retired with the NFL record for highest punting average in a career (45.1 yards), and is still 2nd all-time (Shane Lechler 46.5 yards), and has the best (51.4 in 1940) and third best (48.7 in 1941) season marks. As a defensive back, he was the first player in league history to intercept four passes in a game, and is the only player to lead the league in passing, punting and interceptions in the same season. Baugh also led the league in punting from 1940 through 1943.

The game in which he intercepted four passes, he also threw for four touchdowns - against Detroit in 1943.

My favorite story about Sam Baugh (he was known as Sammy or Slingin' Sammy, but preferred Sam) was about the 1940 title game, which the Bears won 73-0 (still the most lopsided game in pro football history). Earlier that season, the Redskins had won a close game against the Bears, 7-3, and this game figured to be close as well. The Bears took an early lead, 7-0, on the second play of the game when their fullback, "Bullet Bill" Osmanski, broke off a 68 yard dash to the end zone. The Redskins responded by methodically marching down the field and Baugh hit Charlie Malone in the end zone with a perfect pass. Unfortunately, the usually sure-handed receiver dropped the pass and the Redskins failed to score. After the game, the sportswriters wanted to know if that was a turning point - "Would the game have been different had Malone caught that pass?"

Sam reflected, momentarily and drawled, "Sure, the final score would have been 73-7."

Sam Baugh was a man. The greatest who ever played football.

more

A tribute on the ESPN website.

2008-12-15T18:15:00.000-05:00

Faster.

It isn't just James Gleick or Bruce Feiler, consider this from John Steinbeck:

The split second has been growing more and more important to us. And as human activities become more and more intermeshed and integrated, the split tenth of a second will emerge, and then a new name must be made for the split hundredth, until one day, although I don't believe it, we'll say, "Oh, the hell with it. What's wrong with an hour?" But it isn't silly, this preoccupation with small time units. One thing late or early can disrupt everything around it, and the disturbance runs outward in bands like the waves from a dropped stone in a quiet pool.

-John Steinbeck, East of Eden, 1952 (Chapter 49).

2008-12-07T12:47:00.001-05:00

67 years ago - infamy.

Here you can listen to the radio bulletins, as recorded at the time, of the attacks on Pearl Harbor and other military bases in the Pacific.

Here is a news article which gives some background on how some of these recordings were made - which wasn't normal at that time.

At Thanksgiving, my father told us his memories of December 7, 1941. He had gone with his family and aunts to a special presentation at St. Casimir's Catholic Church in Lansing on missionary efforts in Alaska. They had a party afterward in the parish hall and then went home. He remembers the radio reports and, then, he said, all the women started crying, because this meant war and the loss of sons and husbands and brothers...

2008-11-08T12:43:00.001-05:00

Out for a time

...again.

I might be back after Advent.

2008-11-05T21:19:00.001-05:00

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

An opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal by "an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004."

Please read it all.

2008-11-04T22:36:00.002-05:00

Wrong Again.

I sure blew that prediction. While I'm very happy that America has overcome the race barrier, I'm concerned that we have selected someone so far to the left.

Gird your loins.

2008-11-04T04:05:00.003-05:00

My Prediction.

I'm going with Obama to win the popular vote in the neighborhood of 49% to 48.8%, but McCain to win the Electoral College:

2008-11-04T04:01:00.001-05:00

The coming Messiah.

A music video for election day.

(note that the Obamaniacs have flagged this as "inappropriate" - but there's nothing wrong with it.)

Song: Comfort Eagle by Cake.

2008-10-31T17:20:00.004-04:00

I'm updating the blog - if you see this note, it's still not done. In doing so, I've taken down the Haloscan comments and will enable Blogger comments later.

I'm mostly done with the updates - some of the links are broken and I need to go back and fix those.

Also, I'm having trouble posting the ProLife Blogs icon on my sidebar:

If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.

2008-10-31T16:08:00.002-04:00

Responding to Obama.

This post by Christina Dunigan is absolute must reading. I left Sen. Obama's "argument" up on its own (below) without critique. Ms. Dunigan responds and destroys his comments with flawless logic and true humanity.

2008-10-30T20:27:00.004-04:00

"What happens to the mind of a person...?"

Here is audio of Senator Barack Obama arguing against the Born Alive Abortion Bill in Illinois:

What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have twenty years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.

- Jesse Jackson, National Right to Life News, January 1977.

2008-10-28T00:50:00.001-04:00

I'm voting for this guy...

2008-10-24T21:14:00.002-04:00

A Personal Choice

BabyBlue has a story - a true story up about a man named Frank who reads "the series called, 'Conversations with God'. . . the third book in the series discusses suicide and emphasizes suicide as 'a personal choice'...

This is a story about Frank.

Frank was a bright young officer under my command in Kosovo. We spent many long hours talking, especially late at night when all was quiet, unless their was a disturbance downtown or something. Frank was a recovering alcoholic and a man in search of answers. I worked hard with him, making steady progress until I finally reached the point where I could share the Gospel with him.

Please read it all

2008-10-23T22:06:00.002-04:00

In Memoriam.

Today, we observe those who died in the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing. It happened 25 years ago, October 23, 1983.

Here is a list of those who died for our country that day; 220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors and three Army soldiers.

Remember too, the near simultaneous attack on the 3rd Company of the 1st Parachute Infantry Regiment, France (La 3ème Compagnie, 1er Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes) which killed 58.

And then there came a shadow, swift and sudden, dark and drear;
The bells were silent, not an echo stirred.
The flags were drooping sullenly, the men forgot to cheer;
We waited, and we never spoke a word.
The sky grew darker, darker, till from out the gloomy rack
There came a voice that checked the heart with dread:
"Tear down, tear down your bunting now, and hang up sable black;
They are coming -- it's the Army of the Dead."

* * *

The folks were white and stricken, and each tongue seemed weighted with lead;
Each heart was clutched in hollow hand of ice;
And every eye was staring at the horror of the dead,
The pity of the men who paid the price.
They were come, were come to mock us, in the first flush of our peace;
Through writhing lips their teeth were all agleam;
They were coming in their thousands -- oh, would they never cease!
I closed my eyes, and then -- it was a dream.

There was triumph, triumph, triumph down the scarlet gleaming street;
The town was mad; a man was like a boy.
A thousand flags were flaming where the sky and city meet;
A thousand bells were thundering the joy.
There was music, mirth and sunshine; but some eyes shone with regret;
And while we stun with cheers our homing braves,
O God, in Thy great mercy, let us nevermore forget
The graves they left behind, the bitter graves.

Robert W. Service
The March of the Dead

2008-10-19T20:28:00.005-04:00

Obama, Kmeic and Abortion, (continued).

The smart side of the blogosphere continues to look at the evasions by the Obama camp on his extreme pro-abortion stance and his efforts to downplay that stance.

First, here's Archbishop Chaput, at Public Discourse, excerpt:

Prof. Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. He served in the Reagan administration, and he supported Mitt Romney's campaign for president before switching in a very public way to Barack Obama earlier this year. In his own book he quotes from Render Unto Caesar at some length. In fact, he suggests that his reasoning and mine are ''not far distant on the moral inquiry necessary in the election of 2008.'' Unfortunately, he either misunderstands or misuses my words, and he couldn't be more mistaken.

I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ''abortion-rights'' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ''pro-choice;'' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let's remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ''murder'' - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.

Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's ''real'' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.

Notre Dame Law Prof. Rick Garnett writes of the Kmeic essay, mentioned below:

Doug Kmiec's latest, in the L.A. Times, seems, at the end of the day, to endorse the old "personally opposed but . . . " argument from Gov. Cuomo's Notre Dame speech....

* * *

This is not the pro-life view. Nor, until a few months ago, would Doug Kmiec have regarded this as the pro-life view. It is emphatically not the case - at least, it is not the case for those who hold the views that Prof. Kmiec always professed to hold — that the regulation of abortion involves a burden on the religious freedom of those who do not believe that unborn children are entitled, as a matter of human rights, the protection of the law. To protect unborn children is to vindicate human-rights commitments. It is not to impose sectarian morality on non-adherents. (Remember, Doug Kmiec professes to believe that the Constitution requires governments to ban abortion. It doesn't, but that's not the issue. Can it be that the Constitution requires a ban *and* that "the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment"?)

In Newsweek, the unholy trio of Obama apologists (Nicholas P. Cafardi, M. Cathleen Kaveny and Douglas W. Kmiec) who claim to be communicants in the Church of Rome respond to George Weigel. Unfortunately, the best they can offer about Obama is that he's not McCain:

The church asks its faithful to find meaningful—not hypothetical—ways to promote human life. While getting the law and philosophy right might eventually do that, it does bring up the question: What are you doing for the cause of life now? The McCain answer: not much.

Besides being prepared to nominate justices like Samuel Alito and John Roberts, who in keeping with their judicial oath are certainly not on record as having a predetermined view on the reversal of Roe, McCain's planning has all the narrow, in-built affluent bias of the near-identical Bush ideas. In terms of health care, McCain makes no provision for the uninsured and proposes that the insured pay more, in all likelihood dumping people into a private insurance market that is more expensive and less responsive to those with pre-existing conditions.

They are unable to give any positive reason explaining how voting for the radical pro-abortion Obama is consistent with Roman Catholic theology.

On Mirror of Justice, Richard Stith replies:

Doug Kmiec, Cathy Kaveny, and Nick Cafardi make some good arguments for voting for a Democrat who actually helps women choose life as opposed to a Republican who pays only lip-service to the pro-life cause (even though lip-service from a bully pulpit counts for a lot). As a life-long Democrat, a passive member of Democrats for Life, and an active member of Consistent Life [formerly “Seamless Garment Network”], I would be quite open to such an argument.

But that argument would be valid only if we had candidates like Jimmy Carter running against pitiless Republicans.

By contrast, Obama has refused to endorse our modest Democrats for Life proposal to help women choose life. Far worse, he has said that his first act in office will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA will hurt women as well as children, especially because it will eliminate state laws that discourage overly hasty abortion decisions.

Why don’t Doug and his friends ever respond fully to the FOCA question raised by Weigel and George? (I call Doug “Doug” because he was my colleague here in Valparaiso for two years or so, during which, by the way, I don’t recall him ever hinting that he agreed with my pro-life stance. I was pleasantly surprised to hear of his views later on.)

More generally, they don’t seem to take seriously Cardinal George’s statement that “children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can't be something you start playing pragmatically against other issues.”

My suspicion is that all three of them –and indeed John McCain as well—have failed to grasp the fundamental pro-life argument for human equality....

More later, I'm sure.

More already:

From Richard John Neuhaus:

As abortion extremists put it, the woman has a right to a dead baby. Obama apparently agrees, even saying that it is a constitutional right. In this he goes farther than almost any reputable constitutional scholar, claiming that the abortion license is covered by a right to “privacy” that is found not only in the “penumbra and emanations” of the Constitution but in the Constitution itself.

This, together with his adamant support for the government funding of abortion and for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate all state regulation of abortion–including waiting periods, parental notification, and other very modest measures–leaves no doubt that Senator Obama is on the farthest edge of abortion extremism. And it highlights what is arguably the most important single issue in this election: Who, as president, will get to nominate the next one, or two, or three, justices to the Supreme Court.

------------------------------------------

BTW, I looked for a link to this here and see I failed to mention it last spring. Therefore, from last April, this by Michael Gerson, in part:

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Perhaps this is a revolt against a culture of disposability. Perhaps it reflects the continuing revolution of ultrasound technology -- what might be called the "Juno" effect. In the delightful movie by that name, the protagonist, a pregnant teen seeking an abortion, is confronted by a classmate who informs her that the unborn child already has fingernails -- which causes second thoughts. A worthless part of its mother's body -- a clump of protoplasmic rubbish -- doesn't have fingernails.

Abortion is an unavoidable moral issue. It also has broader political significance. Democrats of a past generation -- the generation of Hubert Humphrey and Martin Luther King Jr. -- spoke about building a beloved community that cared especially for the elderly, the weak, the disadvantaged and the young.

The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community.

These trends reached their logical culmination during a congressional debate on partial-birth abortion in 1999. When Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether this included the car trip.

2008-10-17T22:32:00.003-04:00

...But for Wales. I have been reading Douglas Kmiec's repeated endorsements and statements on this subject (including his self-professed martyrdom in being turned away from Holy Communion - see below).

Recently, continued correction has come from, among others, Robert George of Princeton, see this very powerful essay and this follow-up. In addition, George Weigel has called out Dean Kmiec by name in this essay. In the face of this, Kmiec has issued yet another call to vote for Obama, knowing that Obama has said "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." and that he favors the repeal of the Hyde Amendment which stops the government funding of abortion. See also this.

How can he continue to back the radically pro-abortion Obama?

I am now convinced that Kmiec is doing this solely for personal gain - he is hoping to get that coveted judgeship. It has come time then, to view him as the very worst traitor - a 21st century version of Richard Rich.

You may recall in the play or movie "A Man For All Seasons" Robert Bolts' Thomas More is persistently pestered for an appointment to office by Richard Rich. More tells him early on that he can have a post at a school as a teacher:

MORE: Why not be a teacher? You'd be a fine teacher. Perhaps even a great one.

RICH And if I was, who would know it?

MORE You, your pupils, your friends, God. Not a bad public, that . . . Oh, and a quiet life.

At the end of the play, when More is on trial, he refuses to testify and Cromwell produces Sir Richard Rich who gives perjured testimony that results in the eventual conviction of More. As Rich leaves the witness stand, this exchange occurs:

MORE I have one question to ask the witness. (RICH stops) That's a chain of office you are wearing. (Reluctantly RICH faces him) May I see it? (NORFOLK motions him to approach. MORE examines the medallion) The red dragon. (To CROMWELL) What's this?

CROMWELL Sir Richard is appointed Attorney-General for Wales.

MORE (Looking into RICH'S face, with pain and amusement) For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!

Kmeic is 57 and would be 66 at the end of the Obama presidency - it's his last hope for a judgeship. So what if Obama solidifies abortion on demand and makes you pay for it, he will be known as Judge Kmeic - isn't that worth it?

2008-10-11T12:56:00.002-04:00

Amend It.

I am strongly opposed to amending a state or U.S. Constitution to address something like marriage. I don't think the Constitution should have language which expressly sets forth marriage shall be between one man and one woman only.

The problem is, judges don't share that belief. As we have seen, first in Massachusetts, then in California and now in Connecticut, judges believe they have the power and the duty to amend the state constitution to override the express will of the people and the state legislatures and radically alter the state constitution and create out of whole cloth a new definition of marriage.

Accordingly, it is time to rebuke the judges and let the people amend their constitutions - it is probably time to pass a federal marriage amendment as well.

It should be noted the extreme violence these radical judges are doing to the state of the law by substituting their own personal whims for the laws carefully thought out and developed over time. It could be that, in time, society will change and will decide to jettison marriage and substitute something new. So be it - it is not for the judges to act as tyrants to ram these changes through.

Therefore - amend the constitution and send a clear message to the judges that they, too, are under the law.

More

Beldar on the CT ruling.

2008-10-10T21:59:00.005-04:00

Two Charts

First, the Dow from September 16, 2008:

Second, the RealClearPolitics Average of Polls from September 17, 2008, the last time Senator Obama and Senator McCain were tied:

Is there a correlation?

Is there causation?

More

In response to the blogfather, one reader notes:

One of my hedge-fund readers emails:

The thumbnail future market history of this month is likely to include the phrase "correctly discounting the economic fallout of an Obama presidency and hard-left Congress repeating the failed frenetic economic policies of the 1930s". Let's just hope it doesn't take a re-run of the 1940s to extract us.

Ugh. Thanks for that comforting thought. And those enthusiastic for New Deal type solutions should be required to read Amity Shlaes' book on the subject.

Or at least this: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate.

P.S. Thanks for the comments!

2008-10-05T20:54:00.004-04:00

McCain, Life and Human Rights (brief)

I also want to get to Senator John McCain on his response to the human rights of a baby question. I think that while he answered the question in a manner that, say, a devout Roman Catholic might agree with, his past vote does not square with his answer. Again, from the Saddleback Civil Forum:

Q: AT WHAT POINT IS A BABY ENTITLED TO HUMAN RIGHTS?

A: AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. I HAVE A 25-YEAR PRO LIFE RECORD IN THE CONGRESS, IN THE SENATE. AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I WILL BE A PRO LIFE PRESIDENT AND THIS PRESIDENCY WILL HAVE PRO LIFE POLICIES. THAT'S MY COMMITMENT, THAT'S MY COMMITMENT TO YOU.

Unlike my post below, this will be a brief one (for now - I may revisit).

The problem is, that while John McCain opposes "fetal farming" or the creating of human embryos for stem cell research, he is also in favor of using human embryos already existing for such research.

In addition, he has voted to fund such research:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

As quoted from here.

I respectfully submit, then, that he does not believe a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception.

2008-10-05T20:05:00.005-04:00

More on Doug Kmiec and his Betrayal of the Pro-Life position.

As I note below, Pepperdine Law Professor (and former Dean of Catholic University) Douglas has endorsed Barak Obama, a man who is, without question, the most pro-abortion candidate to ever run for the U.S. Presidency. He has gone further and written a book defending his position. His initial endorsement is here, although he does nothing to attempt to reconcile his supposed pro-life beliefs with Barack Obama's pro-abortion actions. (Wisconsin Law Professor mocks it as not understandable.)

So why does Kmiec back Obama?

Does he believe that Obama has had a conversion experience and now admits he was wrong? No, he acknowledges disagreements with Obama over the issue.

Has Kmiec changed his view and become pro-abortion? No, Kmiec insists that he is still a faithful Roman Catholic.

Is Kmiec a Quisling or a Richard Rich who will betray all for higher office (perhaps a judicial appointment)? Well, he's not craven enough to say.

What Kmiec says is that Roe will never be overturned and that Obama will try to keep girls and young women from becoming pregnant. Apparently, he is also fed up with the Iraq war and believes that the U.S. should pull out immediately, even if it leads to civil war and genocide.

No really. Here is one of his essays defending his support for Obama.

Also, as you will note in the essay, Kmeic, a self-professed Republican lawyer claims "the current Republican Party thrives on demonizing its opposition to win elections." This may be the only thing I currently agree with him on - however, I note that the Democratic Party is doing exactly the same thing - witness the unrelenting attacks on Sarah Palin (do I even need to begin to document this?)

Here are some thoughts by Deacon Keith Fournier. Here is a post by Prof. Richard Garnett (added later: And this longer more recent one on the First Things blog). First Things editor Fr. Richard John Neuhaus responded earlier here. Finally, although not directly on-point on Kmiec, here is an interesting note on the effect of an Obama Presidency passed on by Rob Vischer (although not written by him).

More:

The Martyrdom of St. Douglas Kmiec:
Here is Kmiec's account of being denied the Holy Eucharist. Here are some responses by Kmiec to a Beliefnet Q and A.

2008-10-05T19:20:00.000-04:00

Obama, Life and Human Rights (Part II)

In my last post, I looked at Obama's statements on the human rights of a baby - in particular related to abortion. In this post, I will examine his actions as a legislator.

First, I must acknowledge the wonderful work done by Jill Stanek, a nurse whose ordeal at Christ Hospital, pushed her into the forefront of this issue. Ms. Stanek, in 1996 held a newborn boy who had Downs Syndrome, while she watched him die because he survived an abortion. She contacted law enforcement officials who told her the law did not protect infants who survive an abortion - as a result she began a campaign for a law which would protect any baby who had been delivered from the womb from being "terminated."

This legislation, known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was overwhelmingly passed at the federal level and signed into law by President Bush. It passed the House by a voice vote and it passed the Senate unanimously.

In 2001, in Illinois while Barack Obama was serving in the State Senate, state Sen. Patrick O’Malley of Oak Lawn introduced a parallel bill to apply at the state level. [Due to constitutional concerns, even if the federal law had been in effect, it is not likely that it could be enforced in the individual states - see United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)]. The bill used as its definition of "live birth" the same definition used by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955. See Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill was sent to the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee where Sen. Obama voted no. (see .pdf here). When the measure reached the floor, Senator Obama was the only voice to speak in opposition and indicated he would vote present (which, for purposes of this bill, had the same effect as a "no" vote). The bill passed The floor discussion can be read here (.pdf transcript, pages 84-90). Here is Senator Obama's objection:

… I just want to suggest … that this [legislation] is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — child, a 9-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

What he is arguing is that because the Act covers a baby when it is removed or expelled from the mother, the Act would also protect a living baby in the womb. Never mind that the definition, as noted above, only covers a baby who has been delivered in some fashion from the mother.

Although the bill passed the Illinois Senate - over Barak Obama's objections - it died in the house. See here for Obama's "present" vote on the Illinois Senate floor (.pdf), March 30, 2001.

Recall that we are looking at when Barak Obama thinks a living human gets human rights - for Obama in 2001, a baby who had fully been delivered from the mother was not guaranteed the protection of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights or any human rights. It could be exposed and left to die and Barack Obama was alright with that.

In 2002, Sen. O'Malley again introduced the Born Alive Infants Protection Act as SB1662. Again the bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where Sen. Obama voted no (.pdf). Having passed the committee, the bill was sent to the floor, where again Sen. Obama led the opposition to it. Transcript from April 4, 2002 (.pdf) - see pages 28-35. Specifically, if you read his objections, he believe the intent of this bill is not to protect a human life but is "...really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman... to perform an abortion." Ms. Stanek has posted audio of Obama making this objection on the floor here. Unlike in the prior year, this time Sen. Obama actually voted "no" on this bill. See here (.pdf). Again the bill died in the Illinios House.

In 2003, control of the House switched parties and although the Bill was introduced again, this time it was not sent to the Judiciary Committee, but to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama. In Committee, the Bill was amended to add the "neutrality clause" from the federal version to the Illinois Bill version to make them absolutely identical. Barack Obama voted in favor of adding this clause. See the docket, here in .pdf. Even after making this amendment, which appeased rapid-pro-abortion politicians such as Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama still voted to kill the bill which would protect a child who was born alive during an abortion. Once again, the bill was killed and did not see the light of day. For a very complete discussion of the episode of the 2003 bill see this page by Jill Stanek.

The bill did not pass the statehouse until after Barack had left the state senate. See this letter to the editor from Former state senator Rick Winkel, in which Sen. Winkel notes that none of the opponents, he believes, actually favor infanticide, but all were so rabidly pro-abortion that none could bring themselves to vote for protecting the newly born:

On March 12, 2003, I presented the neutrality amendment before the state Health and Human Services Committee chaired by then state Sen. Obama. All 10 committee members voted to add the amendment. Nevertheless, during the same hearing, the committee rejected the bill as amended on a vote of 4-6-0. Obama voted no.

I was stunned because the neutrality amendment addressed the concerns of opponents. It was the same neutrality language approved by U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in the federal bill.

None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide. Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.

In 2005, I joined 116 state representatives and 54 senators in voting for HB-984, which contained the same born-alive definition and neutrality language as Senate Bill 1082, plus some extra language to satisfy the most zealous pro-choice legislators, yet harmless to the bill's purpose. No one voted against it. We had finally accomplished what we had set out to do—protect a newborn baby's life.

To summarize: Barack Obama has, through his actions, shown the world that if it comes to a newborn baby's human right to life versus a mother who intended that that child die in an abortion, the baby has no right to life and must die. To answer the question he avoided at the Civil Forum, it appears that for Barack Obama, no fetus has any human rights and no newborn has human rights if the mother desires the child dead.

Addendum:

I did not intend for there to be such a long delay between my first post on this subject, immediately below, and this one. Indeed, most of this was written at the time of that post (in fact, they originally were to be one, but due to the length, I split them), however, there were many new news stories and developments. As I expressed initially, I started writing this with a desire to give Senator Obama the full benefit of any doubt and have spent a great deal of time reading the charges and countercharges and looking for an exculpatory explanation which would indicate Barack Obama would, in deed, give a new born child some human rights. Nevertheless, the record is quite clear. If you doubt me, please do your own research. Finally, this link sets forth Sen. Obama's defense of his record on this issue:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccusations

You may also read the webpage of former Catholic University Law School Dean Douglas Kmeic here. (See also, Ed Whelan who counters Kmeic here.)

And finally, here is a link to an examination of this issue by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania: FactCheck.Org

2008-09-08T00:37:00.001-04:00

Obama, Life and Human Rights (Part 1)

I will begin this section with an extended discussion Senator Obama had with Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in southern California:

Q: ... Now, let's deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. you know, as a pastor I have to deal with this all of the time. All of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

A: Well, i think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So i think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue i think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members. and so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground and by the way I have now inserted this into the Democrat party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.

Q. Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

A. I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro life, I think they would consider that inadequate and I respect their views. I mean one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then i can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.

What I can do is say are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need. Have we given them the support services that they need. Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary. That i think can make a genuine difference.

This is from Part Two of the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency (I have made a few minor corrections). I give the full quote and will attempt to give longer quotes because I want to be as fair and accurate as I can to Senator Obama.*

Notice, first of all, that Senator Obama does not answer the question - which was really very simple - when does a baby get human rights? This is not a question about when life begins, but when an infant simply gets the rights that any American have?

Indeed, this very question was the spark which set off the Civil War, when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and a majority of the Supreme Court held that blacks had no rights that white men were bound to respect. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (Taney specifically wrote the blacks in America were: "..."beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." at 407)

So Pastor Warren's question is a good one - it doesn't seek to get a philosophical answer - but rather an answer which a legislator, an executive, or a judge, must face.* Not to mention a constitutional scholar, which Senator Obama claims to be. Unfortunately, he doesn't answer the question - instead, he throws up a theological and scientific smokescreen and evades completely the fundamental human rights issue. When does a baby get human rights?

In order, then to answer this question -- to find out when Senator Obama believes a baby receives human rights, we must look to his past actions and statements to see if he has answered the question.

As I indicate below, I believe he has answered the question and I think his answer is monstrous.

To begin with, I look to the official statement on the Obama website - which he has hidden. It's not given an entry of it's own - "abortion" and not in the obvious places - "civil rights," "family," "healthcare," "ethics," "disabilities," - instead we find it under "women's issues," (along with "stem cell research") and reads in full:

REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

In brief, then, he stands behind the Roe decision which grants nearly unlimited abortion. He says nothing about the modification of Roe in Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania vs. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992).**

Steven Waldman, editor of Beliefnet, surveying Obama's recent statements on the subject observes a straddle going on:

On the one hand, he wants to court moderate evangelical Christians and centrist Catholics. Evangelicals and, to a lesser extent, Catholics tend to oppose abortion.

On the other, he wants to court independent suburban women, who tend to be pro-choice, and he's laboring to attract Hillary Clinton voters - and donors.

Perhaps this is why Sen. Obama's moves on abortion have seemed clumsy. He made news by saying he supported a ban on "partial birth" abortions except if the mother's life or health was seriously threatened - only to back off and add "mental health" to the list of exemptions.

Sen. Obama's approach has been to combine down-the-line pro-choice policies with conspicuous respectfulness of pro-life people. While he supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would potentially roll back state restrictions on abortion, his Web site declares that he "respects those who disagree with him." In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he recounted how a pro-life protester had once offered to pray for him: "I said a prayer of my own - that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me." His most evangelical-friendly formulation came in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "Abortion is a deeply moral issue and those who deny there's a moral component to it are wrong," he said, adding that he trusted women to make "a prayerful decision" and said sex education needed to impart the "sacredness of sexuality."

Waldman further notes that Obama probably would not push for public financing of abortion (although I have my doubt about this, since he wants to federalize all healthcare).

But more important than this is what Obama thinks about the unborn and the newborn. When does that baby obtain the protection of human rights? When does Obama think the law should protect the helpless baby? After all, Sen. Obama believes that terrorists have the same legal rights as criminal suspects which should be adjudicated in criminal court. Shouldn't a baby have some rights?

________
* On Sunday, September 7, 2008, Barak Obama acknowledged his statement was "flip," but continues to cling to his claim that this is solely a theological question. I believe this is the link, if there is a menu at the bottom of the page, select the video titled "Obama: McCain has Suggested I am a Muslim"

** I have heard some people regard this as a theological question - when does human life begin? I guess I don't understand why this is considered theological - which I always considered to be primarily the study of God, and secondarily the study of doctrine and religion. I assume people use "theological question" to represent a dustbin, into which they can then dump the question since God is not supposed to have anything to do with American law.

*** In particular, see the opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, noting the plurality opinion "retains the outer shell of Roe . . . but beats a wholesale retreat from the substance of that case."

2008-09-07T15:24:00.004-04:00

Why I voted for Obama.

Last February, in the Virginia Primary, I cast my vote for Barack Obama. Looking back now, I can admit that I did so without fully informing myself of his background and beliefs.

Mea culpa!

My impression of him was that he was a reformer - I was aware that he had co-sponsored a bill with Senator Tom Coburn to give a bit of clarity to federal spending. In doing so, I saw he reached across the aisle to team up with a maverick, thereby giving himself the aura of a maverick and someone who could forge bi-partisan bonds. I had heard that he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review with the support of the conservative law students, further giving me hope that he could forge bonds (I still don't know if this story is true). Prior to Obama being elected to the US Senate, I recall reading encouraging posts on him by fellow U of Chicago professor Jacob T. Levy. (Of course, this was back before I learned that Obama was not a professor - just a part-time lecturer.) And finally, I recall reading favorable commentary from Christianity Today's Books and Culture editor Agnieszka Tennant (who remains a supporter).

(As a parenthetical - Barry Obama was a 1979 graduate of Punahou High School in Honolulu, in the same school and class as my life-long best friend and best man. While I had left the islands long before this, there is something special about thinking that we were in the same place during the same era - even if he did go to the ultra-elite Punahou.)

In addition, in Virginia, I had the opportunity to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary - and by the time we voted, the GOP nominee was fairly well decided. This left the choice as to either Hillary or Obama.

Finally, well after I cast my vote, I learned that former Reagan Justice official and former dean of Catholic University, Douglas Kmiec endoresed Barrack Obama - for me, this was a big deal as it conferred a solid pro-life imprimatur on the candidate.

Since that time, when my vote was cast in large part on wishful hope and in large part on Obama's association with people I respected, I have learned of Barack's other associations - with Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and I have learned about his positions with respect to life issues - which are monstrous - and will be the subject of another post.

2008-09-04T19:24:00.001-04:00

Obama Wins!

Here we are on the cusp of John McCain's acceptance speech to be given to the GOP convention and we can already predict that Barack Obama will win the presidency. This is based on a set of "keys" developed by Political Scientist Allan Lichtman with Russian geophysicist Voldia Keilis-Borok.

Over the past two years, Prof. Lichtman has consistently predicted a GOP loss, no matter who is the nominee for either party. See, for example, this column from June 2008.

The following are Lichtman's 13 keys, with my answers given (if close, I will break the tie in McCain's favor):

1. The incumbent party (i.e. George Bush's party - the GOP) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election. NO ( In 2002, the GOP won 229 seats, in 2006 it only won 202.)

2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. (close - I'd say yes there was, but on the other hand, McCain wrapped this up on Super Tuesday- therefore tie goes to McCain) Yes. (On the other hand, Lichtman doesn't see this as close and also give this a "yes" answer.)

3. The incumbent-party candidate is the current president. NO

4. There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy. Is Barr or Nader significant? I say no, so advantage McCain - Yes. (Lichtman has the same answer)

5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign. While not doing well, the economy is technically not in a recession. - Yes. (Lichtman scores this as uncertain)

6. Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. NO See, for example, the recent Fed Beige Book, this post by Lane Kenworthy. But see this column by Robert Samuelson.

7. The administration has effected major policy changes during the term. This is iffy - what would the major policy change be? I say the answer is NO. (Lichtman also sees this as a "no")

8. There has been no major social unrest during the term. Yes.

9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Yes.

10. There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term. Iraq - part 1 was a failure - NO

11. There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term. Iraq - part 2, the Surge, was a success - Yes. (Lichtman disagrees - he scores this as a "no")

12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. McCain is a National hero - Yes. (Lichtman disagrees - see below, for discussion on this and number 13.)

13. The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. Barack Obama is a rock star, a celebrity as McCain acknowledges. NO. (Lichtman scores this uncertain.)

If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses. I score six No's, therefore Obama wins. Lichtman scores four yes's, seven no's and two uncertain.

Now, for some longer discussion:

Although Prof. Lichtman has long said these are objective keys, I think there is a lot of subjectivity. What is "major social unrest?" Who is a "national hero?" What is charismatic? And obviously, we disagree on whether the surge was a sucess or not - perhaps this is his partisanship showing - in 2006 he ran for the Democratic party nomination to the Senate based, in large part on his opposition to the Iraq war.

Real per-capita Economic Growth compared

This is a long-term economic key, which compares with the recession key - the short term economic key. I spent a long time reviewing data from, among others, the Census Bureau, the Labor Department, the Fed, the OMB, the GAO, and some other places, I've forgotten. I should have recorded all the details, but I'm convinced, contrary to Samuelson, above, that this is a NO for the incumbent party.

Major military or foreign policy success and failure

These are interesting keys, because Lichtman does split them up, allowing for both a success and a failure. It's clear, despite what the Obama camp would have you believe, that the surge was a success. Nevertheless, what led to the surge in Iraq was a failure. I think perhaps here is an area where the Lichtman keys may need fine-tuning, becuase McCain was opposed to the Bush strategy which led to the early failure in Iraq and backed the surge - prior to that failure. Accordingly, it could be he will escape the damage of the failure key.

Charismatic / National Hero

Personally, I see McCain as a 100% National Hero - however, Prof. Lichtman says he is not:

[the commenter would turn] the charisma/hero key in favor of John McCain when the definitions of the keys, established in 1981, would clearly exclude him. The definition includes national leadership in wartime as exemplified by Grant and Eisenhower. It does not include heroic performance in war.

If you scroll down in the discussion you will see that Lichtman believes that McCain was a Charismatic Figure when he initially ran, but is no longer. All of this seems very subjective to me.

Now then, having said all this, there is still an election to take place. Those of us who follow sports know there is no way an NAIA school with 800 students could beat the number one ranked Virginia Cavaliers and Ralph Sampson. Chaminade?

2008-08-07T23:10:00.003-04:00

I'm a Man.

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 34%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 66%

- based on my browser history; check yourself here.

(I think this is what tipped me:

majorgeeks.com male-female ratio: 1.9

2008-08-03T21:59:00.003-04:00

Rest in peace Aleksandr Isayevich

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of the great men of the 20th Century, indeed a prophet of Biblical proportions, has passed into history.

His address to the Harvard graduates 30 years ago, are the words we in the west need to hear today.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

2008-06-13T21:58:00.003-04:00

Would they appreciate the irony?

Judge James Burge of Lorain County ruled that the administration of the Ohio death penalty was unconstitutional because two of the drugs in the three drug cocktail might cause the condemned to feel pain. Judge Burge is pictured in his office on the right.

So what would Eutimio Guerra and the other 215 persons who were personally killed by Che Guevara (Source in pdf). Note that these 216 persons are all documented and were all killed in Cuba by Che during a three year period. This does not include his post-Cuba victims.

The picture on the left is taken from an execution by Fidel Castro's gang, which included Che Guevara while they were in the Sierra Maestra.

More photos and discussion can be found here.

See also, this page (in Spanish and English).

More. Just to make clear - this has nothing to do with the death penalty -- which I strongly oppose -- or Barack Obama. It has everything to do with idiot judges and idiot followers of mass murderers.

2008-06-02T20:57:00.004-04:00

"Whitey." All this talk about a supposed video tape of Michelle Obama and the "whiteys" takes me back to this Garrett Morris skit from SNL.

2008-05-20T23:50:00.000-04:00

2008-05-20T04:53:00.001-04:00

Dean Koontz. About two years ago, I stumbled across a book by Dean Koontz -- it wasn't really that great, but I enjoyed reading it -- it was fun -- and there were some great lines. Then I picked up another, then another. About the same time, fellow blogger Peter Sean Bradley also stumbled into Koontz - specifically the "Odd Thomas" series. I confess that I haven't started this series yet, although I do have several of these books on my shelf.

Recently I read the first two books from the Moonlight Bay trilogy, Fear Nothing and Seize the Night. Alas, the third of the triolgy, Ride the Storm is not out and has no plans for being finished. Basically, the series is your typical end-of-the-world, genie-out-of-the-bottle dystopian epic about a black government weapons project gone awry. Oh yeah, the main character is a surfer from California. Cool.

Of course, what I love is how the Christian world-view permeates the fiction of Koontz. This does not mean everyone is moral and has G-rated English. One of the main characters of Seize the Night shacks up with his girl. And yet the vision is so right.

Consider these two passages, from Fear Nothing [warning - link contains mondo spoilers]. By way of background, the protagonist has XP, a genetic disorder which prevents him from being in any kind of light with UV waves. He has a friend, Manuel who has been tempted greatly because of his love for his son, Toby, who has Downs syndrome, but is also an idiot savant when it comes to glass blowing.

Because I was not expected to survive to adulthood, my parents raised me to play, to have fun, to indulge my sense of wonder, to live as much as possible without worry and without fear, to live in the moment with little concern for the future: in short, to trust in God and to believe that I, like everyone, am here for a purpose; to be as grateful for my limitations as for my talents and blessings, because both are part of a design beyond my comprehension. They recognized the need for me to learn self-discipline, of course, and respect for others. But, in fact, those things come naturally when You truly believe that your life has a spiritual dimension and that You are a carefully designed element in the mysterious mosaic of life. Although there had appeared to be little chance that I would outlive both parents, Mom and Dad prepared for this eventuality when I was first diagnosed: They purchased a large
second-to-die life-insurance policy, which would now provide handsomely for me even if I never earned another cent from my books and articles.

Born for play and fun and wonder, destined never to have to hold a job, destined never to be burdened by the responsibilities that weigh down most people, I could give up my writing and become such a total surf bum that Bobby Halloway, by comparison, would appear to be a compulsive workaholic with no more capacity for fun than a cabbage. Furthermore, I could embrace absolute slackerhood with no guilt whatsoever, with no qualms or doubts, because I was raised to be what all humanity might have been if we hadn't violated the terms of the lease and been evicted
from Eden.

and then this:

"In spite of all that he didn't have, he was always happy," I said of Toby. "He found a purpose, fulfillment. Now what if they can take him far enough that he's dissatisfied with what he is . . . but then they can't take him all the way to normal?"

"They will," Manuel said with a measure of conviction for which there could be no justification. "They will."

"The same people who've created this nightmare?"

"It's not got only a dark side."

I thought of the pitiful wails of the visitor in the rectory attic, the melancholy quality of its changeling voice, the terrible yearning in its desperate attempts to convey meaning in a caterwaul. I thought of Orson on that summer night, despairing under the stars.

"God help You, Toby," I said, because he was my friend, too. "God bless You."

"God had His chance," Manuel said. "From now on, we'll make our own luck."

According to Mr. Bradley, today is the release date for the newest Odd Thomas book.

2008-05-19T19:53:00.001-04:00

"...under a condition that his name not be used..."

A photocopy of a Washington Post article from the early 1980's:

click on picture for larger image.

2008-05-19T18:34:00.004-04:00

Question 1: Senator Obama, in an interview with CNN, you cited Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter as examples of the kinds of justices you would appoint to the high court. In two cases today, your ideal justices split, with Breyer being in the majority and Souter/Ginsburg being in the dissent.

In the first case, two of your ideal justices would have set free a man who to offered to exchange photographs of adult men sexually molesting his 4-year-old daughter for other pictures of child pornography. [Opinion.] In the second case, your ideal justices would have given a career criminal who was illegally using a firearm a much lighter sentence than what the majority determined the law required. Given that both Justices Roberts and Alito, whom you voted against, were in the majority with Justice Breyer, can you tell American whether you would persist in nominating judges like Souter and Ginsburg?

Oh, and in a third case today, Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from a Supreme Court opinion which overturned the 9th Circuit which had set aside the conviction of a terrorist who conspired to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium holiday travel period.

During the Alito confirmation hearings you opposed him because you believed he was "contrary to core American values." In other words, he was wrong to punish a child abuser, a convict possessing illegal weapons and a terrorist?

Senator Obama, what values are you talking about?

2008-04-28T10:31:00.003-04:00

Voter ID. The Supreme Court today rejected a facial challenge* to an Indiana law requiring voters to show a photo ID before voting.

The Court split 3-3-3, with 2 groups of 3 rejecting the facial challenge: Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion.

Why did Stevens not join up with the liberal trio -- in many instances he is on their side or may even be to the "left" of some of these justices.

John Paul Stevens came to the attention of the public at large as his days as an attorney -- a Republican attorney -- fighting political corruption in Chicago. While he has strong sympathies for the liberal causes, he also knows how these causes can be undermined by political corruption. He is willing to give good government types the tools they need to fight corruption. At the same time, he is willing to give those who see that a corrupt power can misuse this type of statute the tools they need to challenge the application of the law.

As an aside, this shows very good judgment by the Chief to assign the writing of the opinion to Stevens.

In all, a good decision.

* A facial challenge means that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. This is opposed to what will certainly come next: an "as applied" challenge - meaning the statute, as applied, is unconstitutional.

2008-04-12T14:00:00.001-04:00

Happy Golden Anniversary!

To my Mom and Dad on their 50th Anniversary:

2008-03-24T01:14:00.001-04:00

Major Arthur D. Nicholson, Jr. was killed by Soviet forces 23 years ago today. Actually, he was murdered -- he was shot and allowed to bleed to death while his companion, a fellow soldier, was prevented at gunpoint from providing any assistance.

The following article is from the National Review on the 20th anniversary of this cold-blooded murder:

The Last Cold War Casualty
The heroic story of Major Nicholson.
John J. Miller, National Review

Twenty years ago today, Army Major Arthur D. “Nick” Nicholson drove into East Germany to survey Soviet military activity. It was a bright Sunday morning, and he was about to become the last American to die in the Cold War.

Relatively few people have heard of Nicholson, even though his killing dominated newspaper headlines around the world for several tense days two decades ago. A handful of people won’t ever forget him: A small band of former comrades gathers at his Arlington National Cemetery each spring. They’re meeting again this Saturday. Today, at the site of his death near Ludwigslust, the Allied Museum will join Nicholson’s widow Karyn and his former commander, Major General Roland Lajoie, in dedicating a memorial stone.

I wrote about Nicholson’s story in National Review last year. Since then, the Pentagon has made available a large batch of documents on the U.S. Military Liaison Mission, which is the organization Nicholson was serving when he died. Many of these papers describe in detail what happened on his final day. It would be an exaggeration to say they contain shocking new revelations, but they do deepen our understanding of what happened on March 24, 1985.

That morning, which was a Sunday, Nicholson headed into East Germany with his driver, Army Staff Sergeant Jessie Schatz. As members of the USMLM, Nicholson and Schatz were basically licensed spies. Their organization was a holdover from the Second World War, when the Allies assigned representatives to work with each other in Germany’s various zones of occupation as Hitler’s minions disarmed. These special liaison units did not disband with the onset of the Cold War. Instead, they were given something of a carte blanche to roam around the countryside and observe military activity. The Americans, British, and French had soldiers assigned to East Germany, and the Soviets had teams tasked to West Germany.

This awkward arrangement remained in place because both sides found it a useful way of collecting information on the opposition’s troop movements and military hardware. Yet there were enormous tensions, and these always carried the potential of deadly violence.

Sometime in the afternoon, Nicholson and Schatz followed a convoy of Soviet tanks returning from target practice. It was a typical USMLM activity. Nicholson was probably counting the tanks and studying their exteriors. A little while later, the Americans broke off and approached a tank shed. They thought they were alone. The USMLM’s 1985 unit history describes the scene and what happened next:

This facility served the Independent Tank Regiment of 2 Guards Tank Army. Known to be frequently guarded under normal conditions, it had a varied history of occasionally violent reaction. Thus, the tour [i.e., Nicholson and Schatz] entered the area with considerable caution, stopping in the forest to watch and listen at intervals as they did so. SSG Schatz, who had just visited the area a few days prior pointed out an area which had been recently occupied, but the Soviets had departed it. The tour then approached the sheds, photographed signboards displayed nearby, and positioned the vehicle to permit the tour NCO [Schatz] to pull security while the tour officer [Nicholson] checked for armor.

Unbeknownst to the tour, and despite its best efforts at observation, a sentry remained undetected, concealed in the adjacent woods. According to information obtained later, he had been walking near his post on the far side of the sheds as the tour approached. Hearing the vehicle, the Soviet soldier made his way through the flank of the range to a position about 50 meters behind the tour; SSG Schatz noticed him just before he opened fire. The Soviets claim that the sentry issued a challenge in two languages (Russian and German), fired a warning shot into the air, then shot to disable. This is simply not true. SSG Schatz, a native German, heard no challenge in any language. The sentry’s first shot whizzed narrowly over the heads of the tour; it was not a warning, but a miss. And one of the two remaining rounds struck MAJ Nicholson, by this time running back to the tour vehicle, near his center of mass: the upper abdomen. SSG Schatz shouted a warning as the first shot resounded — too late to help. He then slammed the hatch shut, started the car, and threw it into reverse to reach MAJ Nicholson. Hit by one of the shots, Nicholson groaned, fell, called to Schatz, and promptly lost consciousness. The tour NCO sprang from the vehicle to administer first aid, but the sentry refused to permit him to do so. Using sign language, SSG Schatz communicated his intent to the Soviet and took a step toward the fallen officer. The sentry, who had held Schatz at gunpoint the entire time, then shouldered his AK-47, took aim at Schatz’s head, and motioned him back to the vehicle. Seeing the futility of further action and the hopelessness of the situation, SSG Schatz complied. He secured and covered the tour equipment, check to be sure the doors were locked, and waited. Shock set in quickly. ...

Over the next three hours many Soviet officers and soldiers arrived to secure the area, collect data, and investigate the situation; considerable confusion reigned. Yet no one, including the obvious medical personnel, rendered even rudimentary first aid. Finally at 1605A (one hour, 5 minutes after the shooting) an unidentified individual in a blue jogging suit took MAJ Nicholson’s pulse, which had ceased. The protracted failure to provide or even permit any medical attention at all ensured that the wound proved fatal.

An international furor ensued, as the Americans and Soviets traded accusations. The United States demanded an apology and compensation for Nicholson’s wife; the USSR claimed, outrageously, that Schatz had refused to leave his car to help his companion. After a while, the controversy subsided and the Cold War plodded on for a few more years.

One thing is not in dispute: Arthur Nicholson fell a hero, the last American casualty of the Cold War. “Nick did not want to die, and we did not want to lose him,” said his widow. “But I know that he would lay down his life again for America.”

More here.

Never Forget:

more - I discovered today 3/27/08, that I merely saved this as a draft, instead of posting it as final. Apologies.

2008-03-18T18:39:00.001-04:00

Iranian Checks and Drafts.

Here's a memo from a bank I worked at in the 1970's:

Click on image to see large version.

President Jimmy Carter declared a national emergency on November 14, 1979, but the freeze on bank accounts and assets other than that of the actual "government" of Iran took awhile to work out. In the mean time, banks sought to proceed carefully.

2008-03-16T20:40:00.002-04:00

Meditations on the Last Supper. For Holy Week, this year I would like to meditate on the Last Supper in the Gospels. This website on the chronology looks like a good springboard.

2008-03-14T21:31:00.004-04:00

Saturday Night Alive.

This vibrant ministry was active in Fairfax Virginia from the mid- to late-70's (I think 1977 or 78) until sometime in the 1980's. It had a big role in my spiritual development - wonderful worship and great teaching. Because of H. Lawrence "Renny" Scott, I ended up at Church of the Apostles and became an Episcopalian.

Click to see larger picture

If you look in the picture of the Praise Band, the person on the back row, second from the right? That's Rick Lord who is currently the Rector at Holy Comforter in Vienna; his blog is here.

Benny Phillips is now down in Orlando with his wife Sheree (who was also in the Praise Band). Renny is the Headmaster at Christian Heritage School in Dalton Georgia.

2008-03-11T20:21:00.004-04:00

Garden Hotel Menu, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

This was probably from about 1964. (click on the picture to see a larger version)

Note that the menu was typed and then the Chinese was handwritten in -- in ink.

2008-03-11T02:00:00.004-04:00

Swim Meet Entry Card - 1975.

Here it is, nice and efficient. Each swimmer picked one of these up at the Clerk of Course when checking in for your event. You handed it to the timer before the event and swam.

2008-03-10T21:18:00.005-04:00

DC101 (1976). I'm going through some of the really old stuff I have squirreled away in my basement and have found some interesting things from the 1970s. I'll post some scans here over the next few days/weeks/months.

First up, an easy one. Here's a bumper sticker for the FM Radio Station, DC101. It broadcast the cutting edge rock stuff. I guess back in the mid-1970's this classic rock format was cutting edge:

The VW Bug I drove back then was exactly the same color of orange:

That's my girlfriend Debbie in the beetle.

Here's the link to today's 101.

2008-03-10T10:32:00.001-04:00

Galactic Cowboys.

In looking up stuff on Larry Norman, I came across this video by another favorite band, The Galactic Cowboys; it's called "If I Were A Killer:"

(Warning -- this is very hard rock)

Lyrics:

This is just a hypothetical story
Of someone, let's just say it's me
I'd gain acceptance for my murderous ways
By stalking a defenseless prey

If I were a killer, I'd smile just like the boy next door
If I were a killer, I'd say I do it for the poor
If I were a killer, You'd bring me victims more and more
If I were a killer!

Supreme Court would agree to hear my case
And find me innocent of crime
Holding public rallies to incite sympathy
Creative actuality

If I were a killer, I'd hide behind a doctor's door
If I were a killer, I'd scrape you off my office floor

Other songs of a similar vein(no pun intended):

I always like this from the band's FAQ:

6. Are you a christian band?

NO!

7. Are you Christians?

YES!

Here's a great fan page.

2008-03-09T23:29:00.006-04:00

I'm Blue.

I'm feeling melancholy. I learned this morning that an attorney I worked with years ago just died. Apparently she had four young kids. She died of a virus. She didn't feel well a week ago and went to the doctor and they hospitalized her, but couldn't do anything for her.

Gone -- just like that.

Update.

Here is her obituary:

Kelly Martin Calahan, Age 45, of Manassas, Virginia passed away on March 8, 2008. A life-long Virginian, Kelly was born in Atkins and graduated from both Virginia Tech and the George Mason School of Law. Kelly is survived by her husband, Louis Calahan; one daughter Carleigh, age 7; two sons, Quinn, age 9 and Luke, age 4; her parents, + and Robert Martin of Atkins, Virginia; her sister and brother-in-law, Karen and Mike Haga of Coppell, Texas and one brother and sister in-law, Dennis and Jenny Martin, St. Petersburg, Florida and a host of friends. Kelly was a member of Covenant Presbyterian Church, in Manassas, Virginia and had a passionate commitment to helping the less fortunate throughout her life. Kelly became a committed wife and mother after marrying Lou, the love of her lifetime in 1998. Kelly was actively involved in all aspects of her children's educational and recreational activities. Professionally, Kelly spent her career as an attorney in a variety of government positions and was serving as Associate Counsel at the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C. at the time of her death. Kelly was an avid home decorator. Her other interests included reading, shopping and cooking. A memorial service will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 11 at Covenant Presbyterian Church, 5460 Hoadly Road, Manassas, Va. Arrangements are being handled by Miller Funeral Home of Woodbridge In lieu of flowers, the family asks that donations be made to Kelly's favorite charity, the St. Jude Children's Hospital Memorial Program, 501 St. Jude Place, Memphis, Tennessee 38105.

More.

The memorial service today was very beautiful. As I expected, the Church was packed and there was no place to park. Kelly touched many lives -- indeed she was a person full of life. Her brother and sister both spoke eloquently of her and you could see in them and in J. Kelly Martin Callahan that this was (and is) a sterling family.

2008-03-02T07:11:00.003-05:00

Laetare Sunday.

This is Laetare Sunday, one of the two Sundays of the Liturgical year in which rose-colored vestments are authorized. The other is Gaudete Sunday in Advent (hence the rose-colored candle in the Advent wreath).

These traditions hearken back to pre-literate times when instruction was given through stained glass windows, vestments and the like of the liturgical year. Both Advent and Lent are times of fasting, with Lent focusing on Jesus fasting in the wilderness. During these times of fasting the vestments and altar cloths are purple (or blue) to reflect the sober times. The "pink" vestments remind us that even in these times of fasting, God gives us grace. Even as He sent angels to His Son during His time in the wilderness, Laetare Sunday reminds us that in tough times He is always there with grace and mercy.

I love these traditions and I believe they speak to a need in all of us for something more than the written word, the spoken word. We see it in the pink and yellow ribbons being worn by so many, the message bracelets and so on.

This is a Sunday to remember there is Joy in the journey. Laetare is latin for rejoice (the opening words of the introit were "laetare Jerusalem" or "rejoice Jerusalem). So this is a day to celebrate and rejoice!

2008-02-28T22:05:00.003-05:00

The KKK or...

Planned Parenthood? "...this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited, and want to make sure I don't leave anything out."

What was it the caller wanted?

"the less black kids out there the better." (via Kathy Shaidle)

You can hear it here. (you should listen to it quickly -- the abortion zealots will shut it down quickly.) The conversation begins at about the 2 minute mark.

2008-02-26T18:52:00.009-05:00

LN: My Story.

It was October 1978 -- I was devouring the Bible and meeting with a diverse group of young believers. My girlfriend was away at James Madison University and I was going to school at George Mason.

I was really into music -- Neil Young, Bob Dylan, the Who, Springsteen, the Rolling Stones. Dylan was just about to break into his "Gospel Phase" and I had never heard of "Christian Music."

I mean, I really dug the Bible and Jesus and even Moses and all the books of the Old Testament. But Christian Music. Forget it. It was musty sounding hymns.

(Yeah, when I was younger we had folk mass -- the songs of Ray Repp -- but I hadn't connected that with "Christian Music.")

My girlfriend's brother, Ken (a fellow believer) and I drove down to JMU to visit her and some friends. While there, she brought me to see this gnarlly old 5th or 6th year student, Robbie Pitts. (at that time he seemed old -- I was 19.) Anyway, we were all hanging around and my girlfriend begged him to play "that guy." He asked me if I'd ever heard of Larry Norman. Larry Norman, I thought -- it sounds like an accountant. That's not the name of a rocker...

And then he put on a record - "So Long Ago...the Garden" and b.l.e.w..m.e..a.w.a.y....

I remember it was "Garden" because of the painting on the back of the snake skin boots and the apple. (to this day I've wanted snake skin boots) I asked Robbie where he found this album -- it was great. Then he put on "In another Land." Awesome...

It was Neil Young, the Rolling Stones and Leon Russell all rolled into one. And singing a true song about God and life and Christ. I had to get me a copy.

The next week, I looked up "Bible bookstore" in the yellow pages and found "Words of Wisdom" in Annandale. They had about 100 to 150 albums and none of them looked promising. But there in the bin was one album with that guy with the blond hair on the cover (the picture on the left) wearing something that looked like Capt. America, so I snatched it up.

This one was much rougher -- it was Street Level -- intentionally produced to sound like a demo or bootleg album. And that gave it even more cache. But LN albums were hard to find and so we swapped cassettes until we could find one here or there. And in time, from reading the liner notes of the albums, I learned about G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, C.S. Lewis, Flannery O'Connor, Malcolm Muggeridge, Francis Schaeffer and others.

In short, Larry Norman helped keep me sane in a world of tvpreachers and intellectual-hating pentecostals and Bible-hating mainliners and the Religious Right and the Religious Left.

* * *

He had a great background in roots music. There was a great used record store in Georgetown a long time ago and the owner said Larry would come in and clean out all kinds of great blues records that no one was listening to anymore.

He was incredibly paranoid and delusional -- even a devoted fan such as I could recognize that. I later heard that he was bi-polar, that he had suffered a brain injury. Even so, there was something about this that gave me the courage to stand up in church and say, the bishop has no clothes.

He was a goofball -- funny and witty. Very self-deprecating. But on the other hand, he was an incredible self-promoter. You always knew he was "the Father of Jesus Rock."

He was creative and inspired and had a great knack for finding and promoting talent. Look at the "stable" of Solid Rock musicians: Randy Stonehill, Mark Heard, Steve Camp, the group Daniel Amos. Then Malcolm and Allwyn, Sheila Walsh, the Barrett Band. There were others I'm sure I'm leaving out (Lyrix?)

And the few times I saw him in concert, he was incredible. Not necessarily the performances, although these were good. What really set him apart is that he would spend hours after a show meeting with people and talking to them about Christ and their problems and praying for them. Hours -- until the early hours of the morning. If you could wait to see him, he would stop and take time with you.

* * *

In time, Larry Norman even led me back to the Hymns.

But knowing Robbie, I'm sure these were the first lines of Larry Norman I heard:

last night i had that same old dream
it rocked me in my sleep
and left me the impression
that the sandman plays for keeps...

2008-02-25T22:34:00.006-05:00

Be Careful What You Sign by Larry Norman.

Here's a video I put together tonight to one of my favorite LN songs, "Be Careful What You Sign" from the "So Long Ago the Garden" album; 1973.

Note - video had a mistake and was slightly revised.

2008-02-25T11:08:00.003-05:00

Why Don't You Look Into Jesus by Larry Norman.

First, this is probably all I'll be writing about for awhile -- Larry Norman had a profound impact on my life. This song sort of epitomizes what he was about. He wrote this back in the 60's when you couldn't say some of this stuff on the radio. Much less in a song about Jesus.

Sipping whiskey from a paper cup,
You drown your sorrows till you can't get up,
Take a look at what you've done to yourself,
Why don't you put the bottle back on she shelf,

Yellow fingers from your cigarettes,
Your hands are shaking while your body sweats,
Why don't you look into Jesus, He's got the answer.

Gonorrhea on Valentines Day,
And you're still looking for the perfect lay,
You think rock and roll will set you free,
You'll be deaf before your thirty three,

Shooting junk till your half insane,
Broken needle in your purple vein,
Why don't you look into Jesus, he's got the answer.

You work all night, sleep all day,
You take your money, throw it all away,
You say you're going to be a superstar,
But you've never hung around enough to find out who you really are.

Think back to when you were a child,
Your soul was free, your heart ran wild,
Each day was different, and life was a thrill,
You knew tomorrow would be better still,

Things have changed you're much older now,
If you're unhappy and you don't know how,
Why don't you look into Jesus, He's got the answer

2008-02-25T10:32:00.002-05:00

The Outlaw by Larry Norman.

Probably the best song he ever did.

More - I modified this -- the oringinal video I posted was a little hard to hear, but may be found here.

2008-02-25T10:28:00.001-05:00

The Tune by Larry Norman.

2008-02-25T09:05:00.004-05:00

Larry Norman, Home at Last.

I just received an email from an old friend, my college roommate - Larry Norman has passed away.

I will have more to say - for now, a song from Larry:

When you first begin your journey, you're not sure just who you are
And the lessons that you're learning, they don't take you very far.
And you just can't keep from stumbling, though you try so hard to stand,
And the truth can be so humbling when it's just beyond your hand.

As though youth were my invention, as though love lay undefined,
To stay free was my intention, to stay young and unconfined.
And so I held my pride above you, oh, yes, what a fool was I,
Holding back those words "I love you," and letting out that word goodbye.

I was wrong to let you go
I was a child and I did not know
About the love that we both could have given
And now you've gone so far away,
I hope I'll see you again someday
But if I don't, I hope I'll see you in heaven.

I was foolish in my younger days to think they'd never end
Life confused me with its changing ways, and I could not comprehend
All the meaning in those moments now lost like footprints in the sand
And I'm standing here remembering, but it's so hard to understand.

I was wrong to let you go
I was a child and I did not know
About the love that we both could have given
And now you've gone so far away,
I hope I'll see you again someday
But if I don't, I hope I'll see you in heaven.

Now I'm sitting in this garden in the middle of my days
And my memories drift and harden as the years they slip away,
And I've been looking in this mirror at the age around my eyes
Time is such an earnest laborer, precision is his neighbor.
Lay my body in the ground, but let my spirit touch the sky.

I was wrong to let you go
I was a child and I did not know
About the love that we both could have given
And now you've gone so far away,
I hope I'll see you again someday
But if I don't, I hope I'll see you in heaven.

2008-02-22T23:23:00.004-05:00

Great Race.

Back in the Summer of 2006, my sister and I had a little race -- she's a former Gold Medal State Champion in Butterfly (Hawai'i). I'm just a pretender. Anyway, we had a short race and she whipped me. Unfortunately, the battery ran out, so the clip is very short.

2008-02-22T23:10:00.002-05:00

Build it and they will come.

The Obama campaign has come up with a great idea - throwback baseball shirts bearing the candidate's name. Naturally, here's my favorite:

I like the looks of the Dodgers version:

And they've even got the old Padres style:

Field of Dreams?

2008-02-16T22:22:00.002-05:00

History of The Marines' Hymn: (exerpt from Warrior Culture of the U.S. Marines, Copyright 2001 Marion F. Sturkey) The U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force all have their own songs.

For the U.S. Navy, Anchors Aweigh was written in 1906 by Lt. Charles Zimmerman and midshipman Alfred Miles. Initially the song was a tribute to the Naval Academy Class of 1907. Various people revised it later, trying to weed out the nonsense. Another midshipman, Royal Lovell, penned the final stanza in 1926. Anchors Aweigh has a snappy little tune, but no one knows what the words imply. The original first stanza in 1906 had dealt solely with the game of football. Even today, the song offers a bittersweet "farewell to college joys." The lyrics end by "wishing you a happy voyage home." Many musical experts think that Anchors Aweigh is a ballad for football players who like sailboats. But, no one really knows for sure.

The U.S. Army adopted a snazzy tune for The Caisson Song. Unlike the words in the Navy's song, the words of the Army's song make sense. According to the words of each stanza, The Caisson Song clearly is a melody for rural motorists. Edmund Gruber wrote the original lyrics in the Philippines during World War I. Naturally, since most of the fighting was 8000 miles away in Europe, Gruber made only a passing reference to warfare. Yet, he was careful to be "politically correct." He apparently sought the help of first grade students in composing the lyrics. The banal "Hi, hi, hee" is a dead giveaway. No one has a clue as to what it might mean. Still, at least it rhymes.

The U.S. Air Force did not exist in 1938. But, that year Liberty Magazine sponsored a contest for an official song for the Army Air Corps. The magazine received 757 entries. A group of Army Air Corps wives (yes, believe it or not, wives) selected the entry from Robert Crawford, Off We Go into the Wild Blue Yonder.

After World War II the Army Air Corps evolved into the U.S. Air Force. This fledgling flying club adopted Off We Go' as their official song. It suited the illusionary nature of the new Wild-Blue-Yonder-Wonders with references to "those who love the vastness of the sky" and the fictitious "rainbow's pot of gold." The final stanza speaks of the "gray haired wonder," an admirable gesture of non-discrimination for the new civilianized Air Force.

These three songs, Anchors Aweigh, The Caisson Song, and Off We Go into the Wild Blue Yonder, are often played at public events. They obviously delight the members and advocates of the affected service: Navy, Army, or Air Force. When their song is played, sailors, soldiers, and zoomies leap to their feet and shout, cheer, clap their hands, and jive with the music. They have a jolly time, almost like a high school pep rally.

The U.S. Marine Corps is the United States' military band of brothers dedicated to warfighting. The proud Brotherhood of Marines is guided by principles, values, virtues, love of country, and its Warrior Culture. This brotherhood of American Patriots has no song. Instead, Marine Warriors have a hymn. When The Marines' Hymn is played, United States Marines stand at attention. They silently show their pride in their fellow Marines, their Corps, their Country, their heritage, and their hymn.

The Marines' Hymn is a tribute to Warriors. Marine Warriors stormed fortress Derna, raised the American flag, and gave us "the shores of Tripoli." Marines fought their way into the castle at Chapultepec and gave us the "halls of Montezuma." Marines exist for the purpose of warfighting. Fighting is their role in life. They "fight for right and freedom" and "to keep our honor clean." They fight "in the air, on land, and sea." The Marine Corps is Valhalla for Warriors. U.S. Marines need no song. They have a hymn.

Ironically, no one knows who wrote the hymn, which was in widespread use by the mid-1800s. Col. A.S. McLemore, USMC, spent several years trying to identify the origin of the tune. In 1878 he told the leader of the Marine Band that the tune had been adopted from the comic opera Genevieve de Barbant, by Jaques Offenback. Yet, others believe the tune originated from a Spanish folk song. Whatever! Regardless of its origin, The Marines' Hymn has remained a revered icon of the United States Marine Corps for almost 200 years.

In 1929 The Marines' Hymn became the official hymn of the Corps. Thirteen years later in November 1942 the Commandant approved a change in the words of the first verse, fourth line. Because of the increasing use of aircraft in the Corps, the words were changed to "In the air, on land, and sea." No other changes have been made since that time. When you have attained absolute perfection, there is no need for further modification:

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of UNITED STATES MARINES.

Our flag's unfurled to every breeze,
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far off northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job --
The UNITED STATES MARINES.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By UNITED STATES MARINES.

Sir Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, became an ardent admirer of the U.S. Marine Corps. In the company of guests of state, he often demonstrated his respect for U.S. Marines by reciting, from memory, all three verses of The Marines' Hymn.

(hat tip to my sister, the daughter of a Marine.)

2008-02-02T16:56:00.000-05:00

Finally! Art Monk makes it to the Hall of Fame. The other inductees: Darrell Green, Gary Zimmerman, Emmitt Thomas, Fred Dean, and Andre Tippett.

More.

2008-02-02T10:46:00.000-05:00

Into the Hall. NFL Hall of Fame voter Len Pasquarelli has a column up which gives a little background on today's voting for the Hall of Fame.

Here, in order, is who I'd be voting for if I had a vote:

Art Monk
Darrell Green
Cris Carter
Randall McDaniel
Derrick Thomas
Richard Dent
Ray Guy
Emmitt Thomas
Russ Grimm

In my opinion, every one of these belongs, it's just a question of when.

2008-02-02T09:41:00.000-05:00

The Debate Continues. Here is a great website to view the latest on the global warming debates: Climate Debate Daily. It's done by the same folks who put on Arts and Letters Daily.

2008-01-25T23:12:00.000-05:00

Proud to be the Son of a Marine.

2008-01-16T23:22:00.000-05:00

2008-01-15T20:34:00.000-05:00

The Muhammad Code. This is probably the most intriguing story I've seen in awhile. Excerpt:

What if scholars can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Koran was not dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammad during the 7th century, but rather was redacted by later writers drawing on a variety of extant Christian and Jewish sources? That would be the precise equivalent of proving that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels really was a composite of several individuals, some of whom lived a century or two apart.

It has long been known that variant copies of the Koran exist, including some found in 1972 in a paper grave at Sa'na in Yemen, the subject of a cover story in the January 1999 Atlantic Monthly. Before the Yemeni authorities shut the door to Western scholars, two German academics, Gerhard R Puin and H C Graf von Bothmer, made 35,000 microfilm copies, which remain at the University of the Saarland. Many scholars believe that the German archive, which includes photocopies of manuscripts as old as 700 AD, will provide more evidence of variation in the Koran.

The history of the archive reads like an Islamic version of the Da Vinci Code. It is not clear why its existence was occulted for sixty years, or why it has come to light now, or when scholars will have free access to it. Higgins' account begins...

I recommend following the Atlantic link if you are interested.

2008-01-15T20:07:00.000-05:00

More Bad News for the Episcopal Church.

People are breeding. It's the Presiding Bishop's nightmare -- more tacky Mormons, Roman Catholics and especially idiots.

(apologies in advance -- the only place I could find the full interview was Virtueonline.)

2008-01-04T19:19:00.000-05:00

I apologize for not writing more lately -- and when I have, it's been kind of sparse. I'm not sure even how to write this. The past two months my mind (when not on work, which has been pretty tough) has been on some teen age girls.

No, that doesn't sound right...

I've been thinking about my oldest daughter and our difficulties adequately communicating. But also on two of my nieces and their families who are going through some tough times. Because these are all private family issues, I can't write about them in this public forum.

So maybe I'll just take a break and be back in a few days or weeks.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

2007-12-16T20:54:00.000-05:00

The First Jewish Broadcast on Nazi Soil - 1944

This is very moving. Give it a listen.

2007-12-07T05:08:00.000-05:00

The "Battle of Music," Dec. 6, 1941.

Here's a web page devoted to Navy Bands in the Pacific and the "Battle of Music" which would lead to one band being declared the winner on Dec. 13, 1941. That night, three bands competed to see who would take on the Band from the USS Arizona the following week...

Never forget.

2007-12-05T21:02:00.000-05:00

John Lennon's Born-Again Phase

In light of the upcomming anniversary of his murder, here's this article on Lennon and Jesus:

"Can He love me?" the former Beatle asked Oral Roberts. "I want out of hell."

An excerpt from The Gospel According to the Beatles by Steve Turner

From Christianity Today

In March 1977 Yoko traveled with John Green to Catagena in Colombia to meet a witch who had been recommended to her as someone "who could do anything." Green had to accompany her to check out the witch's validity. Yoko paid the witch sixty thousand dollars to perform a series of rituals culminating in the sacrifice of a dove. When they returned to New York; Yoko insisted that they had to fly via Los Angeles and Alaska to avoid having to fly in a northeasterly direction because she believed this would bring her bad fortune.

Next came one of the most extraordinary turnabouts in John's life. A television addict for many years (it was his way of looking at the world since he could no longer walk around anonymously), he enjoyed watching some of America's best-known evangelists—Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jim Bakker, and Oral Roberts. In 1972 he had written a desperate letter to Roberts confessing his dependence on drugs and his fear of facing up to "the problems of life." He expressed regret that he had said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus and enclosed a gift for the Oral Roberts University. After quoting the line "money can't buy me love" from "Can't Buy Me Love" he said, "It's true. The point is this, I want happiness. I don't want to keep on with drugs. Paul told me once, 'You made fun of me for taking drugs, but you will regret it in the end.' Explain to me what Christianity can do for me. Is it phoney? Can He love me? I want out of hell."

Roberts sent him a copy of his book Miracle of Seed Faith and several letters explaining basic Christian beliefs. In the second of his letters Roberts said:

John, we saw you and the Beatles on television when you first came to America. Your talent with music was almost awesome and your popularity touched millions. Your influence became so widespread and powerful that your statement-the Beatles are more popular than Jesus- might have had some truth in it at that moment. But you know, our Lord said, I am alive for ever more. People, the Bible says, are like sheep and are often fickle, following this one day and something else the next. However, there are millions who have received Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and have been filled with the Holy Spirit. They love him. To them He is the most wonderful and popular man who ever lived because he is the Son of God and His name endures.

I thank God that you see this, John, and finally regret thinking any man or group could be more popular than Jesus. Jesus is the only reality. It is Jesus who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life." So, you see, your statement that because of your hard background you've never wanted to face reality is actually really saying you've never wanted to face our loving Lord. What I want to say, as I tried to say in my other letter, is that Jesus, the true reality, is not hard to face. He said, "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." You said, John, that you take drugs because reality frightens you. Remember as you open your life to Jesus, He will take all the fear away and give you peace. Peace that passes all understanding.

This correspondence and his exposure to TV evangelism didn't appear to have any effect until he suddenly announced to close friends in the spring of 1977 that he'd become a born-again Christian. He had been particularly moved by the U.S. television premiere of Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, starring Robert Powell as Jesus, which NBC showed in two three-hour segments on Palm Sunday, April 3, 1977. A week later, on Easter day, he took Yoko and Sean to a local church service.

Over the following months he baffled those close to him by constantly praising "the Lord," writing Christian songs with titles like "Talking with Jesus" and "Amen" (the Lord's Prayer set to music), and trying to convert nonbelievers. He also called the prayer line of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson's program. The change in his life perturbed Yoko, who tried to talk him out of it. She reminded him of what he'd said about his vulnerability to strong religious leaders because of his emotionally deprived background. She knew that if the press found out about it they would have a field day with another John and Jesus story. John became antagonistic toward her, blaming her for practicing the dark arts and telling her that she couldn't see the truth because her eyes had been blinded by Satan.

Those close to the couple sensed that the real reason she was concerned was that it threatened her control over John's life. If he became a follower of Jesus he would no longer depend on her and the occultists. During long, passionate arguments she attacked the key points of his fledgling faith. They met with a couple of Norwegian missionaries whom Yoko questioned fiercely about the divinity of Christ, knowing that this was the teaching that John had always found the most difficult to accept. Their answers didn't satisfy her, and John began to waver in his commitment.

In an unpublished song, "You Saved My Soul," he spoke about "nearly falling" for a TV preacher while feeling "lonely and scared" in a Tokyo hotel. This must have referred to a trip to Japan at the end of May when he stayed at the Okura Hotel for over two months while Yoko visited relatives. Feeling isolated because of the language barrier, he locked himself away in his room for long stretches of time. At night he suffered terrifying nightmares. According to John Green, who makes no mention of the born-again period in his book, John told him, "I'd lie in bed all day [in Tokyo], not talk, not eat, and just withdraw. And a funny thing happened. I began to see all these different parts of me. I felt like a hollow temple filled with many spirits, each one passing through me, each inhabiting me for a little time and then leaving to be replaced by another."

The image was remarkably like one suggested by Jesus and recorded in Luke 11. It's hard to imagine that John was unfamiliar with the passage. Jesus was warning of the danger of merely ridding oneself of evil spirits without taking in the good. He says that an unclean or evil spirit, finding nowhere to rest, will return. "And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first."

Whatever happened in Tokyo, it marked the end of his personal interest in Jesus. "You Saved My Soul" said that he "nearly" fell for the TV preacher, but that Yoko "saved me from that suicide." So the salvation of the title refers to being saved from God, not by God. Yoko had again become the captain of his soul, the mistress of his destiny. Yet his life didn't improve. He sank into a depression, concerned that his creativity had deserted him and that he had no real purpose in life. The only real joy he experienced came from spending time with his son, Sean.

His life was out of his control. He worried about his health and his eyesight, about making the right investments with his money, about his personal safety. The only way out, as far as he could see, was to pay for the services of people who claimed to see into the future. But then, which ones could he trust? If the advice of the tarot card reader contradicted that of the astrologer, which should he follow? Instead of the freedom he wanted when he broke away from the Beatles, he was now completely enslaved. He couldn't travel anywhere without advice from a directionalist, do deals with anyone without knowing their star sign, or make plans for the future without consulting the I Ching.

In January 1979 he and Yoko traveled to Cairo, having heard that there was a major illicit archeological dig taking place. Both of them believed that ancient Egyptian artifacts contained magical powers, and Yoko had dedicated one of the rooms in their apartment to Egyptian artifacts. "I love Egyptian art," she said. "I make sure I get all the Egyptian things, not for their value but for their magic power. Each piece has a certain magic power." They stayed at the Nile Hilton and toured the pyramids, but when word got out about their intentions they were prevented from visiting the dig.

By the time Frederic Seaman became John's personal assistant in February 1979, John's main interest was reading books on religion, psychic phenomena, the occult, death, history, archeology, and anthropology. Specific books Seaman can remember him asking for included Rebel in the Soul: An Ancient Egyptian Dialogue Between a Man and His Destiny, by Bika Reed; Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today, by Margot Adler; and Practical Occultism, by (Madame) H. P Blavatsky. He also listened to a thousand dollars' worth of taped lectures by Alan Watts.

Vacationing in Florida in the spring, he again watched Jesus of Nazareth on its by now regular Easter showing, but his reaction was completely different from the one he had had two years before. He kept joking that they should just get on with it and fast-forward to the crucifixion. Seaman, who was present with John's sons, Sean and Julian, recalled, "John began working himself up into a tirade against Christianity, saying that it had virtually destroyed what was left of pagan culture and spirituality in Europe-a great loss to civilization." He then announced that he was now a "born again pagan."

Later in the year Bob Dylan recorded Slow Train Coming, a gospel album born out of personal experience. Dylan told Robert Hilburn of the Los Angeles Times that he'd recently accepted that "Jesus was real … I had this feeling, this vision and feeling. I truly had a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It's an over-used term. But it's something that people can relate to." Hilburn asked him what "born again" meant. "Born once," he answered, "is born from the spirit below, which is when you're born. It's the spirit you're born with. Born again is born with the Spirit from above, which is a little bit different."

Slow Train Coming was a direct and challenging album. Unlike most gospel recordings, it didn't simply praise Jesus but attacked opposition to him, whether that was religious syncretism, false saviors, or lack of commitment. It was addressed to people like John. In "Precious Angel," the first single, Dylan sang, "Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain't no neutral ground.' In the title track he sang of "Fools glorifying themselves, trying to manipulate Satan."

Dylan's transformation took John completely by surprise. After all, Dylan had been the Beatles' only peer and remained someone whom he deeply respected. What made it particularly galling was that everything Dylan sang about on the album was delivered with a confidence that had always seemed to elude John. Dylan seemed certain that his sins were forgiven, his eternal security was assured, and that God was actively involved in his life.

When asked in 1980 about his response to Dylan's conversion, John was less than honest. He said he was surprised that "old Bobby boy did go that way," but "if he needs it, let him do it." His only objection, he said, was that Dylan was presenting Christ as the only way. He disliked this because "There isn't one answer to anything." This is why he favored Buddhism. It didn't proselytize. In what can now be seen as an allusion to his own born-again period, which hadn't yet been made public, he said, "But I understand it. I understand him completely, how he got in there, because I've been frightened enough myself to want to latch onto something."

His private feelings about the conversion were expressed in his songwriting. He was particularly incensed by the track "Gotta Serve Somebody" because it opposed his view that there was no single truth. The song said, as bluntly as possible, that whatever your station in life, you were either serving God or the devil. This wasn't an avoidable choice. John wrote a riposte titled "Serve Yourself," arguing that no one can save you. The only person you have to serve is yourself. "He was kind of upset [about Dylan's song] and it was a dialogue," said Yoko in 1998. "He showed his anger but also … his sense of humour."

Excerpted from The Gospel According to the Beatles by Steve Turner, published by Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

2007-11-21T18:26:00.000-05:00

Sinister Organization.

More on that sinister organization, The Federalist Society, here.

As I noted before, I joined up quite a few years ago, but maybe because of my liberal taint, I never got the secret handshake nor have I received a judicial appointment.

Of course, I'm still waiting on the IRD checks that have been promised to every orthodox Anglican.

2007-11-21T18:12:00.000-05:00

Firefox 3. (beta)

I usually have 15 to 18 separate windows open when I browse using Firefox, each having anywhere from 1 to 10 separate tabs open. It can be a huge resource hog; so I'm intensely concerned that a new version of Firefox might be worse.

According to this, while the initial loading may consume more memory, leaving all the window and tabs open like I do will actually result in less memory being consumed than with Firefox 2.0.

Thumbs up.

2007-11-21T14:06:00.000-05:00

Reading Level Requirements.

I actually strive to write at 5th grade reading level. So either reading levels have changed or I'm getting sloppy:

(this is the same rating as Prof. Volokh -- but I can only dream to write like he does.)

2007-11-18T22:01:00.000-05:00

Harold Berman, Rest in Christ

I just read on the Volokh Conspiracy blog that law professor Harold Berman passed away. Here is the link to Todd Zywicki's thoughts ("Berman's magnum opus Law and Revolution was one of a handful of books that truly transformed my thinking about law. It is one of those books that once you read it, it is almost impossible to ever again think about law and especially legal history the same.") See also, the wonderful obit in the NYTimes and read it to the end.

I was fortunate to take a one week summer course from him a few years back -- it must have been August 2004, because I remember he was supporting John Kerry. The course was offered at Regent University Law School in Virginia Beach, about an hour from my parent's house. It was an opportunity I couldn't pass up. (In fact, now that I think about it, the last day of class was on August 6, my son's birthday -- I asked him to sing my personal copy of Law and Revolution for Joseph and I will give it to him one day.) Aside from the professor and the course, which was magnificent, the class was very diverse -- ranging from Herb Titus, who at that time was counsel for Roy Moore to the very liberal gay chancellor of a West Coast Episcopal Diocese.

Prof. Berman began the class by actually giving his background and included his testimony, which was fascinating. He was raised in a non-practicing Jewish family and went to the London School of Economics. On a train ride to or from school, he told us he had an encounter with the risen Christ. He said that Jesus appeared to him, physically, as He had to Saint Paul (although Prof. Berman wryly indicated he was allowed to keep his sight) and it changes his life, setting him on the path he would follow. He further indicated this was not a story he ever told but felt comfortable telling it to our seminar.

He was truly a great man and I am thankful I was able to meet him.

More.

Here are some of his writings available on-line:

Here is a review of the second volume of Law and Revolution from The Claremont Institute.

And an old note by former student, Randy Barnett.

2007-11-18T15:35:00.000-05:00

Killing Opportunity: Hugo Chavez

ESPN has an article on-line which you might normally find in The New Republic or The National Review. Here's an excerpt:

With that kind of talent emerging from Venezuela in recent seasons, one would assume that big league clubs would be flocking to the South American nation in search of the next superstar. However, the cultural and political scene in Venezuela is undergoing rapid and radical transformation, and instead of flocking to the country, teams are fleeing over concerns about safety and political uncertainty. They aren't leaving in droves just yet, but the stream has been steady enough to raise a red flag about the future. And that's what has [Angels pitcher Kelvim] Escobar and others worried.

The number of clubs pulling their player development operations out of Venezuela has been a concern for Major League Baseball. Nineteen teams have participated in the Venezuelan Summer League in the past, but only 11 did so this year.

The Padres, for example, had planned on leaving Venezuela following this season after they built a multimillion-dollar facility in the Dominican, but the current situation accelerated the move. The team moved all its player development operations out of Venezuela following the 2005 campaign, two years earlier than originally anticipated.

"We just figured we might as well do it [then] to avoid some of the hassle of having to deal with some of the legislation that [President Hugo] Chávez passes down there in hiring coaches, worrying about severance pay and just getting in and out of the country," says Juan Lara, San Diego's Latin American operations coordinator.

San Diego is not alone. Baltimore ceased operating its academy following the 2006 season. The Red Sox -- one of the teams the Padres shared an academy with -- left when San Diego did in 2005. Cleveland pulled out in 2004.

There has been speculation, more internal than public so far, that Chávez, a socialist and self-proclaimed revolutionary who took office in 1999, will turn Venezuela into the next Cuba. In other words, some worry that baseball in Venezuela will serve to illustrate (once again) how politics spills over into sport. Cuba is an international power in baseball and, as in Venezuela, the game has long been a part of the nation's cultural landscape. But since Fidel Castro took power, the Cuban government hasn't allowed its players to sign professional contracts.

Read it all.

2007-11-13T22:49:00.000-05:00

Day One of the Trial.

Here is a report from The Living Church and here is a sketch from BabyBlue.

My thoughts? This is what is going through my mind:

Neither party expected for . . . the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." . . . He gives to both . . . this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge . . . may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue . . . as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

2007-11-01T15:21:00.001-04:00

Retro-Halloween. We had an old-fashioned Halloween last night -- dating back to even before my time in the '60's with the plastic costumes. Almost all the kids I saw last night were dressed in home-made costumes. And, by-and-large, having talked to the parents as we waited at the foot of the driveway, the kids came up with the ideas and made the costumes themselves.
It was so cool.

I couldn't help but wonder if this is a rebellion to the slutty costume stories we see lately (h/t Kendall). Or maybe I live in a throw-back neighborhood. I mean there was even one house that gave out fresh apples! Of course, we all know these neighbors and there's no worries about poison or razorblades.

But then, maybe not. I mean quite a few of our neighbors are immigrants from India, Pakistan, Latin American and Africa.

It's the New Retroism!

More

James Lileks has a glimpse of the real 1950's Halloween and also riffs on the slutty costumes.

2007-10-31T19:02:00.000-04:00

Hall of Fame, Cut 1

The Pro Football Hall of Fame released the first cut of nominees for the Class of 2008. As in the past, I've indicated an obvious oversight, I'm going to dwell on that. Below are the nominees at Wide Receiver -- I have grouped them into three classes - Must Go In This Year; Should Go In Sometime; and Others. As you can imagine, it starts off small and broadens:

Must Go In This Year
Art Monk (number 6 on all time receptions list [held record when retired]; number 11 on all time yardage list

Should Go In Sometime
Cliff Branch
Harold Carmichael
Both Branch and Carmichael changed the game and are responsible, in part for the other guys having such awesome numbers
Cris Carter (number 2 on receptions list; number 5 on yardage list; no. 2 on receiving TDs)
Andre Reed (number 5 on receptions list; number 8 on yardage list; no. 10 on receiving TDs)
Henry Ellard (probably)

Others
Dwight Clark
Gary Clark (my own sentimental favorite)
Isaac Curtis
Roy Green
Herman Moore
Drew Pearson

Once again, this is a year where no QBs should be chosen. If one is, it should come from one of these three: Ken Anderson, Ken Stabler, Doug Williams. Here are the others: Randall Cunningham, Boomer Esiason, Jim Plunkett (being a Raider fan, I love the guy, but he never had a HOF career), Phil Simms, Joe Theismann, and Danny White (another fine QB who should never make the Hall).

First time nominee Darrell Green, CB, should make it on this go around, but there may reluctance to include two Redskins (i.e. Monk, who deserved admission years ago) -- not to mention all the Hogs who are rightfully being considered.

More to come, I'm sure...

2007-10-30T22:13:00.000-04:00

Does Same-Sex "Marriage" Threatens Religious Liberty?

Here is an interesting Law Review article which argues that it does. (In .pdf format)

Among the potential liabilities noted for Religious Institutions:

Risk of Suits Under Employment Anti-Discrimination Laws;
Risk of Suits Under Fair Housing Laws;
Risk of Suits under Public Accommodation Laws;
Potential Hate Crimes or Hate Speech Liability;
Lost of Tax-Exempt Status;
Exclusion from Social Service Contracts;
Exclusion from Government Facilities and Fora;
Exclusion from Licensing Marriage.

Worth reading.

2007-10-26T19:38:00.000-04:00

Re4mation TheoLOLgians

...as presented by the world’s greatest systematic theologian cartoonist, Fred Sanders.

The whole series may be found here.

(Dr. Sanders was the author of the wildly successful Dr. Doctrine's Christian Comix, which, alas, are out of print.)

2007-10-25T19:55:00.000-04:00

Why L'Affaire Beauchamp Matters.

1. Integrity.

Doesn't this matter to anyone any more? Or are we just the Nixon-Clinton generation and we think that "integrity" is just a nice catch phrase, devoid of meaning and reality?

2. Trust.

Obviously, with out integrity, there is no reason for a reader to trust a magazine, such as the New Republic. When the Stephen Glass scandal broke, then TNR editor Charles Lane realized how important trust and integrity were and ordered an intensive review of the stories and beefed up the magazine. He publicly admitted they were wrong and sloppy and exposed the lies publicly. With L'Affaire Beauchamp, Editor Franklin Foer and Peter Scoblic, Executive Editor, have stonewalled and actively sought to keep Beauchamp from talking with the Washington Post and other media outlets.

3. Patriotism.

This is actually the most subtle of all and probably should be a larger stand alone post, but L'Affaire Beauchamp points out the problem both the media and the modern left have with Patriotism.

It used to be that standing up for America, for serving in the military, was not a red-blue divide issue. Look back to WWII, where JFK served on PT-109 and his older brother, Joe, Jr., who although eligible to return to the states, volunteered for an Operation Aphrodite mission in which he perished on August 12, 1944. Look at William Manchester who describes himself in his survey of the Marines in the Pacific Theater as "a knee jerk FDR liberal." Goodbye Darkness at 379. Look at Judge Harry Pregerson of California's 9th Circuit, described by Hugh Hewitt as "a model of judicial activism for nearly a quarter-century;" he served with the Marine Corps and fought and was wounded in the Battle for Okinawa, in which over 200,000 perished. I could go on -- this was not unusual.

Then came Vietnam and the left saw itself as morally superior and that anyone who served in the military was a war criminal. The only way to exculpate oneself was to denounce the military in a sweeping fashion. ROTC was expelled from campuses and even family members seem to be personae non gratae. In his new book, Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts, Robert Kaplan writes: “At the 2006 Stanford commencement ceremony, a Marine general whose son was the lone graduating student from a military family said he was struck by how many of the other parents had never even met a member of the military before he introduced himself.”

Similarly, many in the media seem to exhibit a willingness to believe all things bad about the military, to the point where they let normal caution and fact checking slip. Contrast the recent whining by Bobby Caina Calvan ("With nothing to lose I decided to get pushy. ... I made it known that I was jotting down his name. . . I was going to bully my way back into the Green Zone. The man with the gun glowered as I continued my barrage of protests.") with Ernie Pyle ("I was away from the front lines for a while this spring, living with other troops, and considerable fighting took place while I was gone. When I got ready to return to my old friends at the front I wondered if I would sense any change in them.")

Now patriotism does not mean unquestioning acceptance. G. K. Chesterton (naturally) disposed of that myth:

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' No doubt if a decent man's mother took to drink he would share her troubles to the last; but to talk as if he would be in a state of gay indifference as to whether his mother took to drink or not is certainly not the language of men who know the great mystery.

G.K. Chesterton, The Defendant (1902).

Both the left and the media need to remember that it's okay to like and appreciate the military and it's okay to love your country.

The ownership of The New Republic needs to find editors who are committed to integrity, trust, and their country.

And we must all pursue the same.

2007-10-24T18:08:00.000-04:00

Who to root for?

My son is a Sox fan, but I like the Black and Silver (and purple) motif of the Rox...

2007-10-23T19:47:00.000-04:00

American Hero.

A couple of months ago, I read the book Sole Survivor by Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Marcus Luttrell about the battle he and fellow Navy SEALS Gunner's Mate 2nd Class Danny Dietz, Sonar Technician 2nd Class, Matthew Axelson and Lt. Michael Murphy
fought in Afghanistan. WaPo Article Glenn Beck Interview pt. 2.

It's an amazing story of a very valiant fight. I have to pause here -- in school they tell you not to overuse adjective and adverbs -- this is one of those rare instances where there aren't enough. You simply need to read the book to find out what these heroes did in the face of incredible odds.

However, the book concluded noting that Luttrell, Dietz, and Axe were all awarded the Navy Cross. But there was no mention of "Murph.' Curious, I googled and came up with silence. It was then I realized he was up for the Medal of Honor.

Yesterday, President Bush recognized that Lt. Murphy (picture at right) paid the ultimate sacrifice for his men and his country, presenting the Medal of Honor to his parents, Dan and Maureen Murphy.

Here are the President's formal remarks.

Washington Times News Story

Please see also, the AP news story here.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

more

Stars and Stripes has several audio clips.

Newsday has some video reports.

CBS has several reports, including the comments from his fiancee, Heather Duggan.

Notes: Retitled from "Sole Survivor" which references Marcus Lutrell's book of the same name.

2007-10-15T20:53:00.000-04:00

J. K. Rowling and the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Here is a fascinating list which compares the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature with who should have won in an alternate universe.

Some I strongly disagree with. For example, I think Sigrid Undset deserved the prize in 1928 and that she is too overlooked. Still some of the other alternatives are proper - in hindsight. (No prizes for Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain, and Henry James?)

Still others, if not proper for that year are clearly contenders (W. H. Auden, George Orwell).

Some are wacky (1974 - John Lennon, Paul McCartney).

Others are a fun matchup - who won in 1930? F. Scott Fitzgerald or Sinclair Lewis?

My own favorite suggestions: Chesterton, Bob Dylan, Dr. Seuss, Ray Bradbury, Robert Heinlein, Phillip K. Dick, J.R.R. Tolkein, Arthur Conan Doyle and Raymond Chandler (but no room for Edgar Rice Burroughs).

Read and enjoy.

2007-10-14T20:46:00.000-04:00

Rest in Peace.

One of the best cartoonists to come along, Chris Muir, last week ran a notice that work was suspended due to a family emergency. Sadly, if you opened his website today, there was this panel:

Back in 2005, Chris alerted us to his sister Cathy's cancer and asked for assistance with a "Clicks for Cathy" campaign.

I do not know Chris, but having read his cartoon, I can see that he is a man of integrity and honor and was deeply impressed with his love for his sister. He uses his humor to gently poke fun and make a point -- I have a feeling that even if you disagree with Chris, even if you are his target, you will never come away bitter.

I believe that we can see a reflection of a family in the character of one -- therefore, I feel Chris' grief and, at the same time, know that Cathy was a remarkable woman. I have no doubt that this is a special family. Which, of course makes the grief even deeper.

Accordingly, if you hit your knees tonight, please offer up a prayer of thanks for the life of Catherine Forsythe and prayers of comfort and care for the entire family.

2007-10-13T08:56:00.000-04:00

Paul Westhead Bowl.

The Warriors of the University of Hawai'i defeated San Jose in OT last night 42-35. Colt Brennan attempted 75 passes, completing 44 for 545 yards. He's out of Heisman competition I fear, because of his 4 interceptions.

Sadly, I don't think the Warriors are going to make the BCS. But I'd love to see them in a bowl against Texas Tech.

2007-10-12T23:00:00.002-04:00

The Kingdom. Thumbs up. I'd rate it an A-.

The only problem I had...

SPOILER ALERT

...was the last minute of the movie.

It's not that it tries to be politically correct, it's that this attempt fails.

Miserably.

Okay, I really mean it -- spoiler alert -- I'm going to tell you the end of the movie.

At the end, the four FBI guys are in their cubes and one of the members asks the team leader (Jamie Foxx) what he said (at the beginning of the movie) to get Jennifer Garner to stop crying:

Adam Leavitt: What did you say to Mayes to get her to stop crying?
Ronald Fleury: I said we were going to kill them all.

And then Director Peter Berg does his pious ham-handed cut to Riyadh where a woman asks a child what his grandfather (the movie's Osama bin Laden figure) whispered to him before he died: "He said we would kill them all."

Yeah, it's set up to allow Berg to show his face at the soirées, but the real problem is that the statement is so inconsistent with the Fleury (Jamie Foxx) character it stands out like Jennifer Garner in a town full of burqas. It's a stretch and it doesn't work.

At worst he would've said "We're going to go there and get some justice."

* * *

Also, the character playing Gideon Young, the Attorney General, is set up to be a religious fanatic like Orin Hatch, but he swears in private, well,

...like Orin Hatch.

But Jeremy Piven, the State Department weenie, and Richard Jenkins as the head of the FBI both work well.

* * *

Actually, it's my understanding that the original ending was nixed as too depressing:

The first Saudi on the scene in the movie, Sgt. Haytham (pictured on the left) was beaten by the Saudi National Guard general in charge. In the movie, Al-Ghazi (very well played by Ashraf Barhom), the Saudi policeman comes to the aid of Sgt. Haytham, however, you can see that Sgt. Haytham is troubled after being tortured by his own government for his suspected involvement in the bombing. The nixed ending has Sgt. Haytham saying goodbye to the FBI team at the air base with a hidden bomb strapped to his chest. Chris Cooper (Sykes) wrestles Haytham away from the group, but Haytham detonates it before Sykes can get clear.

2007-10-11T22:00:00.000-04:00

Add Ons. In installing a home network, I've had to reconfigure all the different PCs I use which has caused me to figure out what add-ons I like and what I don't.

First, I use the Mozilla Firefox web browser. IE7 isn't bad, I just prefer Firefox and the add-ons for it. Next, I add the Google toolbar and the following buttons: Bible Gateway; Download; Webster's Dictionary (what I would love would be a button for the Catholic encyclopedia).

Then come these add-ons:

Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer. Using browsers on at least 4 different machines, I can log in and get my bookmarks wherever I am. Plus, when I update one, they are all updated.
IE Tab ever get those webpages that will only work with IE? Trick 'em. This embeds Internet Explorer in tabs of Mozilla/Firefox.
TinyUrl Creator - allows you to right click and make a tiny url. Simple.
Do you want to print a page, but it's got this color intense graphic smack in the middle which is going to gobble up ink? Use Nuke Anything Enhanced to eliminate it.
Cooliris Previews gives you a preview of a page before you surf to it.
Finally, PDF Download lets you choose how you want to view a .pdf document you are going to download - in the browser, in Adobe, as HTML, or save as a file.

I've heard good things about Greasemonkey, but it's over my head.
There is one I have been avoiding - StumbleUpon - because I love to go on tangents and can really waste time. You have to figure it out yourself, if I've tempted you.

More

I forgot a few more -- I told you I'm getting several machines networked.

Forecastfox - I forgot about this, because it's just there. It places the Accuweather forcast for your zipcode on the bottom of the browser. If you use Yahoo widgets, you might have something similar on your desktop, but I like this on my browser. It's out of the way, but handy when I need it. Also, I switch the "Alert Slider" to be inactive (except for severe weather) -- if not, it does take up some resources (when the slider pops up) and slows things down. Also, it doesn't have the spyware that other similar widgets and programs (Weatherbug) have.
Alternatives to IE Tab, mentioned above, include IEView and IE View Lite. I haven't tried either of these.
DownloadHelper is one I'm still playing with - it lets you download web content like videos and images - and yes, it works with flash video like YouTube. However, this past week, I tried using it to download the Dahlia Lithwick & Jan Crawford Greenburg exchange on bloggingheads.tv and it didn't work.
Similarly, I'm still trying to decide whether I like Clipmarks or not. It allows you to clip and save portions of webpages. Where it's been nice is I've saved whole articles (although there is a size limit) in a private space, which I don't feel like I can legally post (in their entirety) here. That way, it's archived, accessible and available when the original online article disappears.
Oh, and what the heck, here is the link for StumbleUpon.

Also, the good thing about being networked is that I should be able to get back to doing some of this blogging stuff on a more regular basis.

2007-10-11T21:45:00.000-04:00

Maybe I should've copyrighted the idea?

Or the acronym? From a long post I wrote back on January 11, 2004:

Next was Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Church, speaking on "The Network" Since his talk is on-line, here, [link no longer works] I'd direct you to read it in it's entirety. It is important. My only comment would be on the name: Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes. I prefer the Confessing Anglican Network of America ("CANA") -- as in the place where our Lord took stagnant water and turned it into wine.

2007-09-29T00:38:00.000-04:00

Divisions

We are all rightly distressed, and ashamed also, at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it. That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age. It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then. Once you are well soaked in it, if you then venture to speak, you will have an amusing experience. You will be thought a Papist when you are actually reproducing Bunyan, a Pantheist when you are quoting Aquinas, and so forth. For you have now got on to the great level viaduct which crosses the ages and which looks so high from the valleys, so low from the mountains, so narrow compared with the swamps, and so broad compared with the sheep-tracks.

- C. S. Lewis
Introduction to De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation) by St. Athanasius

2007-09-13T18:47:00.000-04:00

Sign o' the times

I clipped the following from my local grocery store sales circular:

I wonder whose idea it was to put the Happy Ramadan under the Bud ad? [ed: maybe because it's a light beer, it works during a period of fasting? uhh, No.]

2007-08-22T20:29:00.000-04:00

Father Damien. From a thank you note dictated to my wife from daughter Emilie, age 6:

Thank you for letting us watch “Father Damien.” The first time you ever saw the first bit of the movie, they were taking people to this island to see if they were sick and if they were sick they wouldn’t be released, but if they weren’t sick they would be released. So, Father Damien went to this island where there were lots of lepers and some people told him not to touch them, but he did. People asked him to put his hands on their children and pray for them and he did. And there was a wedding in the movie. And the queen came and she asked what the people wanted and they said they needed medicine. Father Damien got so sick and he died. He prayed with them and there were so many lepers he couldn’t even heal them in one whole day–he was there for trillions of days. He also taught them to sing like a choir because they rebuilt this church and this guy climbed up on something to see what was happening in the church (it was a long movie). When he first went in the church, the things where they sat were knocked over and some windows were broken–even stained glass windows!....................

(Background- while we were at my parents last week, we all watched the movie "Molokai: The Story of Father Damien.")

2007-08-22T18:52:00.000-04:00

Some Articles. Since I'm not much good at blogging...

Judge Mukasey on Padilla and terrorists in court. (WSJ - Free).

The new Mall towering over Mecca (FT-blog).

Frida Kahlo's last secret. (the Guardian)

Anyone remember Fr. Richard P. McBrien, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame? Prior to Ratzinger's elevation to Pope McBrien argued it would never happen: “He’s too much of a polarizing figure,” McBrien told The Washington Post. “If he were elected, thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Europe and the United States would roll their eyes and retreat to the margins of the church.” And he's right! That is, if the margins of the church means "More money, More pilgrims and lot's more Latin." (Times Online)

Hitch and the ABC (scroll down to June 10) (Vanity Fair)

Finally, Ingmar Bergman could've defeated Death at chess, if only he'd sent Death for a pizza.

2007-08-08T21:16:00.000-04:00

Back with Harry. Yes, it has been awhile. I'm back with a post about Harry. Not my own thoughts, but those of Gregg Easterbrook writing at ESPN. [SPOILER ALERT] Hence, I post his note in full (links added):

God and Man at Hogwarts: The postwar United Kingdom has produced three blockbuster young people's fantasy series, the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis, the "Golden Compass" series by Philip Pullman and now the Potter volumes. All feature astonishingly capable English schoolchildren with magic powers. The Narnia books are explicitly Christian; the Golden Compass books are explicitly anti-Christian; what about Potter? Though J.K. Rowling's 4,000 pages concern supernatural forces, the soul and communication with the dead who exist in an afterlife, religious issues are missing from the series. The wizards and witches of the Potter world celebrate Christmas, but otherwise seem to have no religious views and never pause to reflect on where their power comes from or what the spirit world might be. Perhaps Rowling concluded that in the contemporary milieu, it's totally fine to market a children's story containing numerous scenes in which children are tortured or murdered, but mentioning God would be too controversial.

The final book was the first to contain religious references, and they've been missed by commentators. Harry travels to the enchanted village where the good wizards and witches of England live and observes there is a church at the center of the town square -- the evil sorcerers have nothing like this. On his parents' tombstone in the church graveyard, Harry sees the inscription, The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. This is the essence of resurrection theology, and though readers aren't told, is a quotation from Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth. In the older Bible books, there is no talk of heaven or paradise; even the righteous dead go to a place of oblivion. When Christ declared, "I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever," he was announcing the defeat of death and offering a fundamentally new compact between Maker and made. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain ... But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead ... The last enemy to be destroyed is death." The declaration comes in the same letter where Paul set down some of the greatest words in all literature: the magnificent passage that begins, at First Corinthians 13, "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

When Harry finds the Dumbledore family grave, he reads this inscription: Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Though readers aren't told this either, the phrase is a quotation from Jesus. The teaching, at Matthew 6:19, is worth contemplating in its fullness, as it is difficult to imagine 40 words that exceed these in wisdom:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Regarding the "Golden Compass" volumes, in them God is a central character -- but is actively evil, obsessed with causing people to suffer. The plotline of the books is that Christianity is a complete fraud and the source of all that is wrong with society; the final "Golden Compass" volume concerns a desperate attempt by the heroic children to kill God and obliterate every trace of Christianity from several universes. I found Pullman's arguments against Christianity puerile -- like recent anti-Christian books by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, the "Golden Compass" volumes resort to the cheap subterfuge of cataloging everything bad about religion while pretending belief has no positive qualities. Pullman, Dawkins and Harris are anti-faith jihadis: they don't just want to argue against the many faults of Christianity, they want faith forbidden. But however flawed the "Golden Compass" books might be, to advance anti-Christian views is Pullman's prerogative, and his art should be transferred authentically to the screen. Now that the Golden Compass volumes are becoming big-budget flicks, will Hollywood accurately depict their loathing of Christianity or turn the books into a mere adventure story?

2007-05-23T18:33:00.002-04:00

Jerry Falwell. They laid the body of Jerry Falwell to rest yesterday. Here's where I give the obligatory "I was never a fan" disclaimer -- and I wasn't. He was a Southern Baptist televangelist and I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I could never understand why he was so frequently labeled a "hater" nor why those who despised him so greatly actually turned into such rabid haters themselves.

He had a son, also named Jerry Falwell, who was in law school during the mid-80s at UVa -- I had friend who had several classes with this young man who was, like me, a left leaning moderate. He told me that it was obscene how much abuse this guy got. Classmates who were also committed leftists were appalled by the treatment of the guy.

"Sins of the father..."

I was in San Francisco last week when the news came out about Rev. Falwell's passing. Again, the abuse was apalling -- a mock gravesite was erected complete with astroturf for dancing on and a sign reading "Rest In Torment."

This is bigotry, pure and simple.

And, yes, people were coming by to dance on the "grave."

It's not just the Fred Phelps gang that does these things. Or the Moral Majority. Or the Islamists.

Sadly enough, it's also the people of San Francisco...

2007-04-30T18:09:00.000-04:00

Progression.

1964: Justice Potter Stewart, in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), writes that he knows hard core pornography when he sees it.*

1978: Justice John Paul Stevens, in an appendix to FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 751 (1978), sets forth the twelve-minute comedy routine by George Carlin, "the Seven Words You Can't Say on Television."

2007: The Supreme Court attaches a link to a video of a car chase to its opinion in Scott v. Harris at footnote 1. (Video here).

My question: How long before the Court starts posting porn on its website?

------------------
* This is what he actually wrote, in relevant part: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (at 476).

2007-04-17T21:01:00.000-04:00

2007-04-15T19:49:00.000-04:00

Great Series. This past weekend series between the A's and the Yankees was a great series from beginning to end.

Friday night before a rare sell-out crowd, the A's tie up the game 4-4 on Nick Swisher's HR in the 7th. Then ROTY candidate Travis Buck takes a triple from the weak arm of Johnny Damon and score's on Bobby Kielty's grounder. A's 5-4.

Yesterday, the A's jump out to a quick 3-0 lead, before the Yankees tie it up in the 7th and former Athletic Jason Giambi, at that point in the game 0-5, hits a homer to win it in the 13th for the Yanks. Yankees 4-3.

On to today's game -- the A's take an early 2-0 lead off of Andy Pettitte in the first. Yet both Pettitte and the A's Rich Harden pitch well for the rest of the game. Harden pitched into the 7th before leaving with tightness in his pitching shoulder (and after giving up a leadoff double to ARod). Joe Kennedy came in in relief and promptly gave up a single to Giambi and a double to Posada. Then, back-to-back SF's by Robinson Cano and Melky Cabrera put the Yank's up by one. They got another run in the 8th and were ahead going into the bottom of the 9th 4-2. So, naturally, NY brings in Mariano Rivera for the last three -- and get the first two outs easily. Then, Todd Walker singled for Oakland's first hit since the third inning; Jason Kendall then walked, putting runners on first and second. Next up was Marco Scutaro, who was 1-20 at this point in the season. Frankly, I was stunned that manager Bob Geren didn't go to a pinch-hitter. But Scutaro came through, hitting a walk-off homer just inside the left foul poll to take the series for the A's 5-4.

2007-04-15T19:47:00.000-04:00

I'm back from Pago Pago -- but today is "tax day" -- so it will be a few more days before I get my notes up about the trip.

2007-04-01T19:03:00.000-04:00

Samoa. Greetings from Pago Pago. More later.