Samoa. Greetings from Pago Pago. More later.

One, Two.

One

From the Episcopal News Service
Jefferts Schori's opening remarks follow:

Good morning to all of you. And it is a good morning. As the psalmist says, "this is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it." Let us rejoice and be glad in the good and creative ministry going on in so many parts of this church and around the world. That is indeed an enormous blessing in a broken and hurting world.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to and with you, and grateful to Trinity Church for making this format possible. . . .

-Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

Two

New Year's Address to the Nation
Prague, January 1, 1990

My dear fellow citizens,

For forty years you heard from my predecessors on this day different variations on the same theme: how our country was flourishing, how many million tons of steel we produced, how happy we all were, how we trusted our government, and what bright perspectives were unfolding in front of us.

I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, would lie to you.

Our country is not flourishing. . . .

- Václav Havel

Children of Men is a very well done, well recieved (90% on the tomato-meter) flick, yet . . . yet, it leaves me wanting. Much of it does not make sense -- if a nation isn't growing, it will need immigrants, not want to imprison them -- but then, SciFi dystopian stories frequently don't (see 2010).

Jeffrey Overstreet's review on Christianity Today was also very positive and noted the strongly Christian overtones ("Echoes of the gospel—both subtle and obvious—occur at every turn, reminding us that God gave us hope by providing a vulnerable, miraculous child to a dark, dying, violent world"). Yet, he also points out what's wrong with the movie:

Cuarón's movie draws us into a world that bears a striking resemblance to our own. Where Spielberg would have become preoccupied with imaginative gadgetry, as he did in Minority Report, Cuarón prefers to keep our focus on the story and its relevance. (Cuarón recently told me in an interview, "I wasn't interested in the future. I was interested in right now.")

Victor Morton has this review which point out the problems with the movie. Here's a sample:

There's no doubt that this adaptation of P.D. James' Christian dystopia is thrilling in pieces ... particularly, the single-take escape as the camera goes into, out of, through and around a fleeing car. But by the time we got to the bravura closing scene (already dubbed "Fireman, Save My Child" by some wag), I was in such intellectual rebellion that I had long ago emotionally checked out of the film.

What caused this intellectual rebellion is that Cuaron made the material incoherent by completely secularizing P.D. James's themes and characters, and decoupling them from what concerned her. He soft-pedals her judgment of the contemporary culture of death in order to make a politically-correct presentist smirkfest against Bush, Guantanamo, immigration, fascist jackboots, etcetera, etcetera, et-bloody-cetera. P.D. James as rewritten by LULAC. . . .

(for me the last bit about LULAC is way too far, but I still recommend the review). I confess that I have not read P.D. James, but after having read some of the commentary on the movie, I am looking forward to doing so.

Still, Morton is right -- Cuarón has a lot of talent and he wasted it by making a movie for the Michael Moore crowd, instead of a timeless classic.

I give this movie a C.

[hat tip on the Morton review to the Chatman]

"These Dissidents." At three places in his letter, Peter James Lee refers to the confessing churches as "dissidents:

...we will seek the return of the churches of the Diocese of Virginia that are occupied by dissidents.

* * *

...attorneys for the dissidents...

* * *

...we have moved to accommodate these dissidents at the expense of our faithful people.

I am reminded of Václav Havel's essay, The Power of the Powerless, from which I quote below [recall, this was written about dissidents in the Soviet bloc -- fortunately our situation is not comparable, nevertheless, some of these points are worth considering]:

-------------------begin exceprt--------------------------------

Who are these so-called dissidents?

* * *

III

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions.

* * *

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome ihis complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with ihe workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.


* * *

VII

Let us now imagine that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth.

The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post as manager of the shop and transferred to the warehouse. His pay will be reduced. His hopes for a holiday in Bulgaria will evaporate. His children's access to higher education will be threatened. His superiors will harass him and his fellow workers will wonder about him. Most of those who apply these sanctions, however, will not do so from any authentic inner conviction but simply under pressure from conditions, the same conditions that once pressured the greengrocer to display the official slogans. They will persecute the greengrocer either because it is expected of them, or to demonstrate their loyalty, or simply as part of the general panorama, to which belongs an awareness that this is how situations of this sort are dealt with, that this, in fact, is how things are always done, particularly if one is not to become suspect oneself. The executors, therefore, behave essentially like everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree: as components of the post-totalitarian system, as agents of its automatism, as petty instruments of the social auto-totality.

Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence ín people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious. By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.

This is understandable: as long as appearance is not confronted with reality, it does not seem to be appearance. As long as living a lie is not confronted with living the truth, the perspective needed to expose its mendacity is lacking. As soon as the alternative appears, however, it threatens the very existence of appearance and living a lie in terms of what they are, both their essence and their all-inclusiveness. And at the same time, it is utterly unimportant how large a space this alternative occupies: its power does not consist in its physical attributes but in the light it casts on those pillars of the system and on its unstable foundations. After all, the greengrocer was a threat to the system not because of any physical or actual power he had, but because his action went beyond itself, because it illuminated its surroundings and, of course, because of the incalculable consequences of that illumination. In the post-totalitarian system, therefore, living within the truth has more than a mere existential dimension (returning humanity to its inherent nature), or a noetic dimension (revealing reality as it is), or a moral dimension (setting an example for others). It also has an unambiguous political dimension. If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth. This is why it must be suppressed more severely than anything else.

In the post-totalitarian system, truth in the widest sense of the word has a very special import, one unknown in other contexts. In this system, truth plays a far greater (and, above all, a far different) role as a factor of power, or as an outright political force. How does the power of truth operate? How does truth as a factor of power work? How can its power-as power-be realized?

VIII

Individuals can be alienated from themselves only because there is something in them to alienate. The terrain of this violation is their authentic existence. Living the truth is thus woven directly into the texture of living a lie. It is the repressed alternative, the authentic aim to which living a lie is an inauthentic response. Only against this background does living a lie make any sense: it exists because of that background. In its excusatory, chimerical rootedness in the human order, it is a response to nothing other than the human predisposition to truth. Under the orderly surface of the life of lies, therefore, there slumbers the hidden sphere of life in its real aims, of its hidden openness to truth.

The singular, explosive, incalculable political power of living within the truth resides in the fact that living openly within the truth has an ally, invisible to be sure, but omnipresent: this hidden sphere. It is from this sphere that life lived openly in the truth grows; it is to this sphere that it speaks, and in it that it finds understanding. This is where the potential for communication exists. But this place is hidden and therefore, from the perspective of power, very dangerous. The complex ferment that takes place within it goes on in semidarkness, and by the time it finally surfaces into the light of day as an assortment of shocking surprises to the system, it is usually too late to cover them up in the usual fashion. Thus they create a situation in which the regime is confounded, invariably causing panic and driving it to react in inappropriate ways.

* * *

Therefore it seems to me that not even the so-called dissident movements can be properly understood without constantly bearing in mind this special background from which they emerge.

IX

The profound crisis of human identity brought on by living within a lie, a crisis which in turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension as well; it appears, among other things, as a deep moral crisis in society. A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accouterments of mass civilization, and who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of responsibility for anything higher than his own personal survival, is a demoralized person. The system depends on this demoralization, deepens it, is in fact a projection of it into society.

Living within the truth, as humanity's revolt against an enforced position, is, on the contrary, an attempt to regain control over one's own sense of responsibility. In other words, it is clearly a moral act, not only because one must pay so dearly for it, but principally because it is not self-serving: the risk may bring rewards in the form of a general amelioration in the situation, or it may not. In this regard, as I stated previously, it is an all-or-nothing gamble, and it is difficult to imagine a reasonable person embarking on such a course merely because he reckons that sacrifice today will bring rewards tomorrow, be it only in the form of general gratitude. (By the way, the representatives of power invariably come to terms with those who live within the truth by persistently ascribing utilitarian motivations to them-a lust for power or fame or wealth-and thus they try, at least, to implicate them in their own world, the world of general demoralization.)

XIII

* * *

Who are these "dissidents"?

* * *

Perhaps it is now appropriate to outline some of the reasons why "dissidents" themselves are not very happy to be referred to in this way. In the first place, the word is problematic from an etymological point of view. A "dissident," we are told in our press, means something like "renegade" or "backslider." But dissidents do not consider themselves renegades for the simple reason that they are not primarily denying or rejecting anything. On the contrary, they have tried to affirm their own human identity, and if they reject anything at all, then it is merely what was false and alienating in their lives, that aspect of living within a lie.

But that is not the most important thing. The term "dissident" frequently implies a special profession, as if, along with the more normal vocations, there were another special onegrumbling about the state of things. In fact, a "dissident" is simply a physicist, a sociologist, a worker, a poet, individuals who are doing what they feel they must and, consequently, who find themselves in open conflict with the regime. This conflict has not come about through any conscious intention on their part, but simply through the inner logic of their thinking, behavior, or work (often confronted with external circumstances more or less beyond their control). They have not, in other words, consciously decided to be professional malcontents, rather as one decides to be a tailor or a blacksmith.

In fact, of course, they do not usually discover they are "dissidents" until long after they have actually become one. "Dissent" springs from motivations far different from the desire for titles or fame. In short, they do not decide to become "dissidents," and even if they were to devote twenty-four hours a day to it, it would still not be a profession, but primarily an existential attitude. Moreover, it is an attitude that is in no way the exclusive property of those who have earned themselves the title of "dissident" just because they happen to fulfill those accidental external conditions already mentioned. There are thousands of nameless people who try to live within the truth and millions who want to but cannot, perhaps only because to do so in the circumstances in which they live, they would need ten times the courage of those who have already taken the first step. If several dozen are randomly chosen from among all these people and put into a special category, this can utterly distort the general picture. It does so in two different ways. Either it suggests that "dissidents" are a group of prominent people, a protected species who are permitted to do things others are not and whom the government may even be cultivating as living proof of its generosity; or it lends support to the illusion that since there is no more than a handful of malcontents to whom not very much is really being done, all the rest are therefore content, for were they not so, they would be "dissidents" too.

* * *

XVII

* * *

All of this, however, is not the main reason why the "dissident" movements support the principle of legality. That reason lies deeper, in the innermost structure of the "dissident" attitude. This attitude is and must be fundamentally hostile toward the notion of violent change-simply because it places its faith in violence. (Generally, the "dissident" attitude can only accept violence as a necessary evil in extreme situations, when direct violence can only be met by violence and where remaining passive would in effect mean supporting violence: let us recall, for example, that the blindness of European pacifism was one of the factors that prepared the ground for.che Second World War.) As I have already mentioned, "dissidents" tend to be skeptical about political thought based on the faith that profound social changes can only be achieved by bringing about (regardless of the method) changes in the system or in the government, and the belief that such changes-because they are considered "fundamental" justify the sacrifice of "less fundamental" things, in other words, human lives. Respect for a theoretical concept here outweighs respect for human life. Yet this is precisely what threatens to enslave humanity all over again.

"Dissident" movements, as I have tried to indicate, share exactly the opposite view. They understand systemic change as something superficial, something secondary, something that in itself can guarantee nothing. Thus an attitude that turns away from abstract political visions of the future toward concrete human beings and ways of defending them effectively in the here and now is quite naturally accompanied by an intensified antipathy to all forms of violence carried out in the name of a better future, and by a profound belief that a future secured by violence might actually be worse than what exists now; in other words, the future would be fatally stigmatized by the very means used to secure it. At the same time, this attitude is not to be mistaken for political conser vatism or political moderation.. The "dissident" movements do not shy away from the idea of violent political overthrow because the idea seems too radical, but on the contrary, because it does not seem radical enough. For them, the problem lies far too deep to be settled through mere systemic changes, either governmental or technological. Some people, faithful to the classical Marxist doctrines of the nineteenth century, understand our system as the hegemony of an exploiting class over an exploited class and, operating from the postulate that exploiters never surrender their power voluntarily, they see the only solution in a revolution to sweep away the exploitersNaturally, they regard such things as the struggle for human rights as something hopelessly legalistic, illusory, opportunistic, and ultimately misleading because it makes the doubtful assumption that you can negotiate in good faith with your exploiters on the basis of a false legality. The problem is that they are unable to find anyone determined enough to carry out this revolution, with the result that they become bitter, skeptical, passive, and ultimately apathetic-in other words, they end up precisely where the system wants them to be. This is one example of how far one can be misled by mechanically applying, in post-totalitarian circumstances, ideological models from another world and another time.

* * *

But an essential part of the "dissident" attitude is that it comes out of the reality of the human here and now. It places more importance on often repeated and consistent concrete action-even though it may be inadequate...

* * *

Is the basic job of the "dissident" movements is to serve truth, that is, to serve the real aims of life, and if that necessarily develops into a defense of individuals and their right to a free and truthful life (that is, a defense of human rights and a struggle to see the laws respected), then another stage of this approach, perhaps the most mature stage so far, is what Václav Benda called the development of "parallel structures."

When those who have decided to live within the truth have been denied any direct influence on the existing social structures, not to mention the opportunity to participate in them, and when these people begin to create what I have called the independent life of society, this independent life begins, of itself, to become structured in a certain way. Sometimes there are only very embryonic indications of this process of structuring; at other times, the structures are already quite well developed. Their genesis and evolution are inseparable from the phenomenon of "dissent," even though they reach far beyond the arbitrarily defined area of activity usually indicated by that term.

* * *

XXII

* * *

We do not know the way out of the marasmus of the world, and it would be an expression of unforgivable pride were we to see the little we do as a fundamental solution, or were we to present ourselves, our community, and our solutions to vital problems as the only thing worth doing.

Even so, I think that given all these preceding thoughts on post-totalitarian conditions, and given the circumstances and the inner constitution of the developing efforts to defend human beings and their identity in such conditions, the questions I have posed are appropriate. If nothing else, they are an invitation to reflect concretely on our own experience and to give some thought to whether certain elements of that experience do not-without our really being aware of it-point somewhere further, beyond their apparent limits, and whether right here, in our everyday lives, certain challenges are not already encoded, quietly waiting for the moment when they will be read and grasped.

For the real question is whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if, on the contrary, it has been here for a long time already, and only our own blindness and weakness has prevented us from seeing it around us and within us, and kept us from developing it?

-----------------------------end--------------------------------------



I am further reminded of the passage in Acts 17:6 (in part), in which the disciples were accused of having "turned the world upside down" (KJV).

Dissidents? Yes, dissidents...

One, Two.

One

From Peter James Lee:

* * *

Because we believe that God’s promises to his people continue to be reliable, we will seek the return of the churches of the Diocese of Virginia that are occupied by dissidents.

We are commanded by scripture to obey the civil authority. (Rom. 13) While St. Paul admonishes individual Christians to avoid lawsuits with one another, obedience to the rule of law is a more controlling teaching. We believe the law supports diocesan ownership of church property.

In some of our congregations, members led by their lay and ordained leadership, have voted to leave The Episcopal Church and to affiliate with a non-recognized organization of churches purportedly under the authority of Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola. The organization is known as CANA, or Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

* * *

It is for these persons that previous generations of Episcopalians worshiped, worked, prayed and gave generously for the spread of the Kingdom of God. It is the trust that they created, and that we inherited, which now we must move to protect, preserve and expand for generations to come.

* * *

God is doing a new thing.

Faithfully,

Peter James Lee

Two

From today's Lectionary:

Psalm 37

Of David.

1 Do not fret because of evil men
or be envious of those who do wrong;

2 for like the grass they will soon wither,
like green plants they will soon die away.

3 Trust in the LORD and do good;
dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.

4 Delight yourself in the LORD
and he will give you the desires of your heart.

5 Commit your way to the LORD;
trust in him and he will do this:

6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn,
the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.

7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when men succeed in their ways,
when they carry out their wicked schemes.

8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
do not fret—it leads only to evil.

9 For evil men will be cut off,
but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
though you look for them, they will not be found.

11 But the meek will inherit the land
and enjoy great peace.

12 The wicked plot against the righteous
and gnash their teeth at them;

13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.

14 The wicked draw the sword
and bend the bow
to bring down the poor and needy,
to slay those whose ways are upright.

15 But their swords will pierce their own hearts,
and their bows will be broken.

16 Better the little that the righteous have
than the wealth of many wicked;

17 for the power of the wicked will be broken,
but the LORD upholds the righteous.

18 The days of the blameless are known to the LORD,
and their inheritance will endure forever.

19 In times of disaster they will not wither;
in days of famine they will enjoy plenty.

20 But the wicked will perish:
The LORD's enemies will be like the beauty of the fields,
they will vanish—vanish like smoke.

21 The wicked borrow and do not repay,
but the righteous give generously;

22 those the LORD blesses will inherit the land,
but those he curses will be cut off.

23 If the LORD delights in a man's way,
he makes his steps firm;

24 though he stumble, he will not fall,
for the LORD upholds him with his hand.

25 I was young and now I am old,
yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken
or their children begging bread.

26 They are always generous and lend freely;
their children will be blessed.

27 Turn from evil and do good;
then you will dwell in the land forever.

28 For the LORD loves the just
and will not forsake his faithful ones.
They will be protected forever,
but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;

29 the righteous will inherit the land
and dwell in it forever.

30 The mouth of the righteous man utters wisdom,
and his tongue speaks what is just.

31 The law of his God is in his heart;
his feet do not slip.

32 The wicked lie in wait for the righteous,
seeking their very lives;

33 but the LORD will not leave them in their power
or let them be condemned when brought to trial.

34 Wait for the LORD
and keep his way.
He will exalt you to inherit the land;
when the wicked are cut off, you will see it.

35 I have seen a wicked and ruthless man
flourishing like a green tree in its native soil,

36 but he soon passed away and was no more;
though I looked for him, he could not be found.

37 Consider the blameless, observe the upright;
there is a future for the man of peace.

38 But all sinners will be destroyed;
the future of the wicked will be cut off.

39 The salvation of the righteous comes from the LORD;
he is their stronghold in time of trouble.

40 The LORD helps them and delivers them;
he delivers them from the wicked and saves them,
because they take refuge in him.

Psalm 37 New International Version.

Scorecard. Think of this article as your legal scorecard to the impending clash.

Episcopal Sects Preparing for Property Fight With Church

By Anna Palmer
Legal Times
January 15, 2007

Tensions between the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and nine breakaway congregations reached a boiling point last week after the diocese signaled it would not renew a 30-day no-lawsuit pledge — meaning the groups will likely be heading to court over property.

“Everybody’s assumption for a long time was this was likely to be resolved without result of litigation, through negotiations, and ultimately a settlement,” says Gene Schaerr, a partner at Winston & Strawn who is counsel to the breakaway congregations, including the Falls Church and Truro Church. “If they remain unwilling to negotiate about it, as our congregations would very much like to do, we will have to resort to litigation.”

The move followed an initial negotiation meeting between diocese lawyers Bradfute Davenport Jr. and M. Kevin McCusty, both partners at Troutman Sanders, and David Charlton, president of church schools for the diocese, and representatives from the breakaway churches, including A. Hugo Blankingship Jr., partner at Blankingship & Keith who is legal counsel to the Falls Church, Steffen Johnson, partner at Winston & Strawn, and Robert Dilling, partner at Reed Smith who is legal counsel to Truro Church.

The nine congregations voted to secede from the Episcopal Church last month over interpretations of Scripture on hot-button issues such as homosexuality. Of those congregations, the Falls Church and Truro Church are two of the wealthiest and most historic.

The coalition of churches have retained Winston & Strawn partners Schaerr, Gordon Coffee, and Johnson, a former Department of Justice lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel who worked on President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative and is a member of the Falls Church. Troutman partners Davenport, Russell Pallmore (who is also chancellor of the Virginia diocese), and George Somerville are representing the diocese.

After voting in mid-December, the congregations individually filed reports in Virginia county courts, notifying the courts of their intent to leave the Episcopal Church. If the courts certify the vote, the congregations would gain control of the properties.

Davenport says the diocese will intervene in those circuit court proceedings.

“The issue is who owns and controls the property of the breakaway congregations, which includes real estate and personal property, things on the premises, money, and endowment funds,” says Davenport. “These properties are Episcopal properties that are owned by and have been owned by and used for past, present, and future generations of Episcopalians as Episcopal churches and they do not belong legally, ethically, or in any other way to those who choose to leave the Episcopal Church.”

But the breakaway congregations disagree.

“The congregation built and maintained these churches with their own denominations, not the [diocese],” says Johnson of the congregation’s rights to the property. “The diocese and the national church abandoned negotiations before getting them off the ground. We’re prepared to defend the rights of the congregations in court . . . but if they want to return to the table, we welcome that.”

Davenport says he expects the Virginia Diocese executive board to meet within a week of Jan. 17, when the 30-day no litigation period ends, to determine the diocese’s next steps.

“It’s fair to assume the bishop executive board will move to retain property at all of the separated churches,” says Patrick Getlein, spokesman for the diocese [and former Washington Post reporter]. “How it happens remains to be seen. That will be decided after the expiration of the standstill.”

Books of the Year, 2006 edition. I have been fortunate to read a number of excellent books this year; the following are the cream of a good crop:

• The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan (The Penguin Press). I was inspired to read this by Stuart Buck and was not disappointed. Very thought provoking and informative.
  
• The Afghan Campaign by Stephen Pressfield (Random House). This excellent novel of the Afghan Campign waged by Alexander the Great in 330 B.C., shows both the horror of war and the honor which men can rise to. As in The Gates of Fire (his brilliant novel about Thermopylae) Pressfield is able to convey the sense of fighting men and men living in an age of pagan religion without demeaning their religion. I confess that I was a little disappointed by his last book, The Virtues of War. [Additionally, I "read" this in audiobook format by James Langton, who was superb.]
  
• The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, by Lawrence Wright (Knopf).
• Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam by Mark Bowden.
  
• Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang, Jon Halliday (actually, I didn't finish reading this -- my three weeks at the library came up before I finished it and it had a lot of holds).
  

There were two which almost made this list (very good, but not quite in the same tier):

• No Greater Glory: The Four Immortal Chaplains and the Sinking of the Dorchester in World War II by Dan Kurzman.
• Prayers for the Assassin: A Novel by Robert Ferrigno.

In addition, there were three excellent re-reads: (1) William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist; (2) the Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy, and (3) Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Books I hope to read in 2007:

• The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, edited by Edward E. Ericson, Jr., and Daniel Mahoney (ISI Books). Some time ago, Ericson released an abridged version of the Archipeligo Trilogy -- I missed that and haven't been able to find it. I don't want to miss this.
• The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game, by Michael Lewis (Norton). Lewis' Moneyball was a wonderful find -- I'm looking forward to his analysis of football (although he sees the key position as left tackle, I see it as center).
• Reading is Believing by David S. Cunningham (Brazos Press).
  
• Fiasco, by Thomas Ricks. I lent my copy out.
• Darkness Is My Only Companion: A Christian Response to Mental Illness by
  Kathryn Greene-McCreight (Brazos Press)
• Mary, A Catholic-Evangelical Debate by Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson (Brazos Press).
  
• Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England, by Timothy Larsen (Oxford Univ. Press). This one was named "Book of the Year" By John Wilson (who also mentions several of the books above) who writes:

  You know the familiar story, according to which virtually every thinking person in late-Victorian England either lost his faith or maintained a pale simulacrum of genuine belief. While Timothy Larsen acknowledges that there were of course plenty of instances of deconversion, in his new book he draws attention to a counternarrative that has been widely overlooked, embodied in the experience of men and women who moved from doubt or resolute skepticism to Christian faith. In chapter after chapter of brilliantly condensed biography, he tells the stories of individuals whose lives followed this second course. This is a book that will force honest scholars to reconsider what they thought they knew.

More!

In the book department, here is a small library of contemporary Evangelical books on-line:

http://www.ccel.us/Titles.html

Title's out...



Via J.K. Rowling.com

The Vote and other thoughts. Yes, it's a long time after the vote at Truro, but there was so much I wanted to write about, but haven't had an opportunity to do so. I want to preserve some notes so I don't forget. Immediately after leaving church on Sunday (December 10), I went straight to the airport for a work related trip. Anyway, here are the notes and other thoughts:

• We arrived early, because the younger kids were singing at both services. Pulling into the Truro parking lot, we saw the news trucks with the microwave antennaes up. Of course, the kids wanted to know why the TV cameras were there. "Maybe to hear y'all sing?"
• Debbie and I took a place up front in the pews so we could see the kids singing and had a fun conversation with Megan Walnut who is on the Truro vestry. As you may know, the vestry members of the local congregations have been threatened by the Bishop of Virginia, Peter James Lee, with personal liability if the congregations vote to leave the Diocese and align with the Anglican Communion. We didn't really discuss this however (I know that the weight of this issue has been a very heavy burden for all the vestry members) - our conversation was light -- we were all thankful that Truro does have vestry members and other persons who are dealing with the media.
• The service started a little unusually -- it was the convening of a parish-wide meeting which would begin just before the service started and be adjourned, but not ended, each day at a set time to allow continuous voting. Attorney and ECUSA lay delegate, Russ Randle believes the continuous voting procedure violates the canons. Personally, I don't see it; I have tremendous respect for Mr. Randle -- I believe he sincerely believes this; nevertheless, my review of the relevant authorities doesn't persuade me. I guess I look at the four corners of a document (in this case, both the canons and Va law) and don't see anything which prohibits it. Mr. Randle explains "In practice, before this controversy arose, the diocese interpreted this rule to forbid multi-day voting." (Hmmm, do I need to point out that before this controversy arose, the diocese also believe the Word of God to be our authority...?)
  
• The kids sang at the introit -- and sang well.
• I voted after the first service and just before the second service. I went in with my son Joe and signed in. This has been a time of prayer and deliberation. I though of many people who weren't able to vote -- some had passed away -- some left after the actions of ECUSA (especially I was thinking of the Hagens -- I see the plaque on the wall for their baby who died) -- I thought of Karen B. who is doing the work of the Lord in another country and therefore barred by canon law from voting -- I thought of my three youngest kids who were with me and are too young to vote, but who are the beneficiaries of our voting. I marked my ballot "Yes" to both question (leaving ECUSA and joining the Anglican Communion/CANA and to allowing the majority party in the voting to retain the property). Together, my son and I dropped the ballot in the box.
• During the period of (formal) discernment, there have been people I spoke with who didn't see the need for Truro to leave. My response has always been the same -- then that is how you should vote. The Lord does not alway speak through the voice of the majority (isn't that part of the lesson of the various GenCons?), sometime he speaks to a boy or through a donkey. One of these persons is a strong Christian and not a "reappraiser."
• I was very glad that I had reached a decision about how I was going to vote before Bp. Lee sent his bellicose letter to the churches seeking the Lord's will. In his letter he "threatens like a dockside bully..." (Bolt, A Man For All Seasons). My natural reaction would be to respond in kind, or at least to say "to heck with you, I'm voting against you." Of course, this would be as sinful as his letter was.
  
• When the news came out, I found out via the internet -- the BabyBlue blog -- and then was able to read reports on the web (mainly Titus1:9). Kendall Harmon reprinted Martyn's comments and I showed them to Debbie. Martyn led off by noting Sadie Eller's struggles -- Debbie in particular has an attachement to Sadie and has been praying for her and visiting her regularly. Therefore, she could pass on the news to Sadie's daughter, who was particularly touched by Martyn's remarks.
• The WaPo's first published report was typically reprehensible: "CANA is formally under the Church of Nigeria and Archbishop Peter Akinola, who supports a proposed law in Nigeria that would outlaw public and private gay activity."
• Conversely, Peter Lee's first response received no attention for it's implicit racism. Racism? Yes, that's right. This is Virginia -- Peter Lee lives in Richmond, the capital of the confederacy and his first press release specifically mentions "Nigeria" or "Nigerian" four times and "Ugandan" once. Moreover, he continues on to state "This is not the future of the Episcopal Church envisioned by our forebears." Having just lived through the "Macaca" campaign, where the WaPo told us daily that these hidden code words are used to convey racist intent, the clear intent of Peter Lee must be a rallying of the old confederate guard.
  
• At church last Sunday, before the results were announced, my younger kids and I (my wife was home with the oldest daughter who has mono) were seated in the front row. A gentleman behind us, from Africa, prayed for Martyn who he likened to a modern day Moses. I've been thinking since then that this is very appropriate. Moses spent the first 40 years of his life in an important "career," then the next 40 in a humble career as a shepherd, then the last 40 leading a bunch of griping malcontents though the desert. Martyn started off with a promising career working for Mobil Oil, then went to seminary and became a pastor and, at the time he was seeking retirement, was called to lead a diverse group out of the modern day version of Egypt into the Red Sea, stepping out in faith.
  
• Since the results of the vote, there were the front page articles, with pictures, in the WaPo and the Washington Times. This caused my son to ask whether our church is famous. How do you answer a question like that? No, we're not famous. What's happening is significant and has been deemed newsworthy, but it's not fame that anyone is seeking. You'll learn, my son...
• Finally, there have been many articles indicating this is all about homosexuality. No, that's not true. Yes, the ordination of a non-celibate gay clergyman is the straw which broke the back, but it's so much more. The process of naming VGR to be a bishop happened with the full, active, consent of the majority of the lay, clergy and episcopal delegates to the GenCon2003. By so doing, it was clear to all that there had been a break with the past faith. Unlike the heresies of, say Spong, who denied the divinity of Jesus after being named a bishop, this was an active ratification of something contrary to the Word of God. If VGR were named a bishop and then revealed his non-celibate status, it probably would not have provoked the same reaction. Similarly, if VGR had been faithfully married to one wife but were denying the divinity of Christ and were still nominated and confirmed as a bishop, I believe the result would be exactly the same. (For the record, in my first post on VGR, I called him a "theological moderate" compared with the rest of the slate of nominees for bishop of NH.)

All in all, this has been a very sad time -- not a time of triumph or a time of exultation.

Not your father's Amtrac... See this (and for the unintiated, read this or this for a background on the Amtracs).

BTW, yes, I've been traveling and working and putting together a video of my father's life (speaking of my father, above, a retired Amtrac Bn. CO) . I hope to have something up on YouTube soon.

My Ribbon Creek. As I've indicated, work has been busy lately -- well, it's been busy the past 2 years, but the demands have really increased in the past 2 months or so. Because of organizational policy, I don't write much about work and won't really do so today; except obliquely.

When I was a boy and Disney World was brand new, we took a family vacation from the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base to Orlando Florida. On the way, we took a detour to visit the Grinder at Parris Island, S.C. ; excuse me, that is Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island. Heading out to that place in the middle of the high heat, high humidity, bug infested swamp lands, my mother made a reference to "Ribbon Creek." It didn't mean much to me, but I could tell it meant something to both Mom and Dad. Especially Dad. And so, it stuck with me.

Years later, I learned that Ribbon Creek was the site of a tragedy at the MCRD; six Marine recruits died while training. The following is from the official history of the MCRD, Parris Island,

Despite the great care thus used in the selection of men assigned to train recruits, a tragedy resulting from the grievous errors of judgment of a junior drill instructor occurred on Parris Island in April 1956. Various regulations and standing orders of the post were violated at the same time. The offending DI was Staff Sergeant Matthew C. McKeon, assigned to Platoon 71, "A" Company, 3d Recruit Training Battalion. On Sunday night, 8 April, between 2000 and 2045, he marched 74 men of Platoon 71 from their barracks to Ribbon Creek, one of the tidal streams on Parris Island, and led the men into the water. Some of them got into depths over their heads, panic ensued, and six recruits drowned in the resulting confusion. The ostensible purpose of the march was to teach the recruits discipline.

* * *

Thus Sergeant McKeon's ill-fated march set off immediate repercussions which shook Marine Corps training from top to bottom. Moreover, an uninterrupted flood of publicity by the press, radio, and television literally divided the entire country into two opposing camps, those who condemmed McKeon for what had happened and those who sympathized with him.

It was in this glare of public gaze that McKeon's court-martial began at Parris Island on 16 July 1956. A noted New York trial counsel, Emile Zola Berman, undertook the sergeant's defense before the military court. For three weeks, the battle ebbed and flowed, concerned as much with the propriety of the rationale and practices of Marine Corps training as with McKeon's responsibility for the Ribbon Creek affair. Witnesses came forward to defend Marine training, others came forth to condemn it. The defense presentation culminated in the appearance on the stand of retired Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller and the Commandant of the Marine Corps himself.

Finally, on 4 August 1956, the court handed down its decision: McKeon was acquitted of charges of manslaughter and oppression of troops; he was found guilty of negligent homicide and drinking on duty. The sentence was a fine of $270, nine months confinement at hard labor as a private and a bad-conduct discharge from the Marine Corps. Upon review by the Secretary of the Navy, the sentence was reduced to three months hard labor and reduction to the rank of private; the discharge was set aside and the fine remitted.

A Brief History of Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina (1962) at pp 16-18 (notes omitted). See also, Time Magazine, and Keith Fleming The U.S. Marine Corps in Crisis: Ribbon Creek and Recruit Training.

It is my understanding from the reading I have done that the "uninterrupted flood of publicity by the press" was also directed at the Marines and shook the Corps to its foundation. This is part of the reason, again as I understand it, why the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Randolph McC. Pate, ordered the Court Martial reopened (see the history for a more complete explanation of the procedural history).

Further, in reading Thomas Ricks' book, The Making of the Corps he indicates there are framed newspaper articles on the wall today at Paris Island regarding Ribbon Creek. Moreover, as Ricks notes on the "?leadership exam given to students at the Drill Instructors School, . . . five of the fifty questions are about the Ribbon Creek incident."? page 197.

An organization, just as a person, will learn from its mistakes if it wants to improve. Moreover, it cannot just ignore or paper over mistakes, it must review them thoroughly and honestly and report them fully despite the temporary damage it may do to the organization. And those who serve an organization or cause must allow the truth to be fully explored and exposed.

Anyway, at work I'm dealing with a tough issue regarding something (or someone) I really admire. Right now it's in a very preliminary stage, but what I've seen doesn't look good. Of course, it is nowhere near the magnitude of a Ribbon Creek; and I'm nothing more than a hopelite. Still, it will probably be occupying many of my days, nights and weekends at least until the end of the year. If you have read this far, I'd appreciate a prayer that I will have the wisdom to always do the right thing.

(republished with spelling errors corrected)

Interesting robes.

My understanding is that it is intended to reflect her background in Oceanography (wrong -- see below). I can't wait to read the WaPo's Robin Givhan on this (although since politics shape her judgment, I'm sure she will be effusive).

More.

As noted by Judith in the comments (thanks!), the theme of the new Presiding Bishops vestments (and please forgive me if I use the wrong words -- I'm not a native 'piskie) is a new dawn. This can be clearly seen in the full picture:

I should add that from my perspective, this doesn't look like a sunrise -- it looks like a sunset. See also the note and comments at GetReligion.

Allen-Webb, Pt. IV (A New Hope). [Sorry, couldn't resist.] Actually, there really isn't much hopeful or fun about this race. I had started drafting a follow-up to my earlier survey of Webb's books by focusing on his notion of honor, but before I could complete it, he was throwing honor out the window -- embracing Clinton and Kerry -- resorting to vile smears, innuendos and outright lies (he started in with that thoroughly debunked body armor story). So I just couldn't finish and post it.

In short, Webb was, by his campaigning, negating what I thought was his best quality, honor.

This doesn't mean I'm going to now back Allen. He's got his own problems. He acts like a frat boy instead of a leader. Allen's mudslinging regarding the use of inappropriate dialogue (whatever) in Webb's novels are over the edge -- see this rebuttal by Victor Davis Hanson. Yes, as I said before, he was a good governor, but as a Senator, what has he done?

So, maybe it's time for me to check out the Green Party candidate. (I'm already planning on voting Green in the House election -- that's another story).

Also, see the voting guide (here in .pdf format) prepared by Catholics in Alliance ("CiA") a liberal-leaning Catholic organization. As noted by the conservative Weekly Standard, Webb may actually be the more right-wing of the two candidates -- something many of his supporters might not be aware of. Both he and Allen are pro-death penalty, pro-gun rights, anti-affirmative action, etc. So, many of the issues are negated.

The differences, on issues identified by CiA, come down to this (and I'm color coding according to what the CiA sees as crucial issues separating the two; red are negative moral issues, green are positive moral issues, as seen by the CiA):

Webb: for abortion on demand, fuzzy on public financing thereof; for experimentation on unborn children; for gay marriage; for immediate (or phased -- he's claimed both) withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Allen: opposed to abortion on demand; opposed to public financing of abortions; opposed to experimentation on unborn children; opposed to gay marriage; in favor of finishing up in Iraq.

Of course, as I have always acknowledged and CiA also proposes, it's not just a calculation whereby we add up the positive issues and subtract the negative ones and whoever comes out ahead gets the vote. Take the pull out issue. As I'm reading in The Looming Tower (highly recommended), Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists are emboldened by perceived US weakness. A pull out in Iraq will definitely be seen as a victory by the terrorists and will further embolden them. Therefore, Allen may be right -- it would be better (for both Iraq and the US) to see things through.

Anyway, as I said, I'm going to need to explore the Green option, but in the meantime: James Webb, you lost my vote by your abdication of honor.

Thinkin' 'bout Rosemary and thinkin' about the law.

SONG CITES Top 10 most frequently cited popular music artists in legal writing. Bob Dylan...............186 The Beatles..............74 Bruce Springsteen...69 Paul Simon..............59 Woody Guthrie........43 Rolling Stones.........39 Grateful Dead..........32 Simon & Garfunkel...30 Joni Mitchell...........28 R.E.M.......................27 Source: Alex B. Long

From The Legal Times[$], we find that Bob Dylan is the reigning king of the legal citation. That is, "Bob Dylan is the most frequently cited musical artist by legal writers" according to Alex B. Long, an Oklahoma City University School of Law professor.* Specifically, the article notes,

Long researched the ways judges, academics and lawyers use music lyrics to advance legal themes or arguments. The results will be published in the Washington and Lee Law Review early next year.

I will reproduce the article's chart on the right to show you the top ten most cited artists, according to Prof. Long.

You've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks

-Dylan, Ballad of a Thin Man

---------------
* If I didn't check it on the OCU web site, I would swear this name was a pseudonym; a play on Johnny B. Goode.

Santorum, RIP. As a politician, Rich Santorum will have the rare opportunity to read his obituaries as he loses his bid for re-election. He is greatly reviled by the cultural warrriors on the left and far-left, because he is a right-wing cultural warrior. But he is more than this and in his defeat, the country will be the main loser. Peggy Noonan had a nice column today explaining why he will be missed. As did the NYTimes idea of a conservative (one who is both pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion rights), David Brooks. Because the Brooks column will soon disappear, I am reprinting it below.

Political Theater and the Real Rick Santorum

By DAVID BROOKS

Every poll suggests that Rick Santorum will lose his race to return to the U.S. Senate. That's probably good news in Pennsylvania 's bobo suburbs, where folks regard Santorum as an ideological misfit and a social blight. But it's certainly bad for poor people around the world.

For there has been at least one constant in Washington over the past 12 years: almost every time a serious piece of antipoverty legislation surfaces in Congress, Rick Santorum is there playing a leadership role.

In the mid-1990s, he was a floor manager for welfare reform, the most successful piece of domestic legislation of the past 10 years. He then helped found the Renewal Alliance to help charitable groups with funding and parents with flextime legislation.

More recently, he has pushed through a stream of legislation to help the underprivileged, often with Democratic partners. With Dick Durbin and Joe Biden, Santorum has sponsored a series of laws to fight global AIDS and offer third world debt relief. With Chuck Schumer and Harold Ford, he's pushed to offer savings accounts to children from low-income families. With John Kerry, he's proposed homeownership tax credits. With Chris Dodd, he backed legislation authorizing $860 million for autism research. With Joe Lieberman he pushed legislation to reward savings by low-income families.

In addition, he's issued a torrent of proposals, many of which have become law: efforts to fight tuberculosis; to provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries; to provide housing for people with AIDS; to increase funding for Social Services Block Grants and organizations like Healthy Start and the Children's Aid Society; to finance community health centers; to combat genocide in Sudan.

I could fill this column, if not this entire page, with a list of ideas, proposals and laws Santorum has poured out over the past dozen years. It's hard to think of another politician who has been so active and so productive on these issues.

Like many people who admire his output, I disagree with Santorum on key matters like immigration, abortion, gay marriage. I'm often put off by his unnecessarily slashing style and his culture war rhetoric.

But government is ultimately not about the theater or the light shows of public controversy, it's about legislation and results. And the substance of Santorum's work is impressive. Bono, who has worked closely with him over the years, got it right: "I would suggest that Rick Santorum has a kind of Tourette's disease; he will always say the most unpopular thing. But on our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable."

Santorum doesn't have the jocular manner of most politicians. His colleagues' eyes can glaze over as he lectures them on the need to, say, devote a week of Senate floor time to poverty. He's not the most social member of the club. Many politicians praise family values and seem to spend as little time as possible with their own families, but Santorum is at home almost constantly. And there is sometimes a humorlessness to his missionary zeal.

But no one can doubt his rigor. Jonathan Rauch of The National Journal wrote the smartest review of Santorum's book, "It Takes a Family." Rauch noted that while Goldwaterite conservatives see the individual as the essential unit of society, Santorum sees the family as the essential unit.

Rauch observed, "Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of the family." That belief has led Santorum in interesting and sometimes problematical directions, but the argument itself is a serious one. His discussion of the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, for example, is as sophisticated as anything in Barack Obama's recent book. If Santorum were pro-choice, he'd be a media star and a campus hero.

The bottom line is this: If serious antipoverty work is going to be done, it's going to emerge from a coalition of liberals and religious conservatives. Without Santorum, that's less likely to happen. If senators are going to be honestly appraised, it's going to require commentators who can look beyond the theater of public controversy and at least pretend to care about actual legislation. Santorum has never gotten a fair shake from the media.

And so after Election Day, the underprivileged will probably have lost one of their least cuddly but most effective champions.

It should be noted that these comments are not directed at Bob Casey, Jr. -- I wish he were my senator instead of Foghorn Leghorn. Rather, it's a note that we, the country, will be losing a good Senator and a good man.

Quote:

People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; we drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; we drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated.

-D. A. Carson, For the Love of God

Reprinted in the 50th Anniversary issue of Christianity Today.

Sorry for the long absence. If possible, work has gotten even more demanding. I'd love to talk about it, but I can't. I've been coaching my youngest daughter's softball team as well -- and that's been about the only bright spot -- a fixed time for games and practices to get away from work. But that season has wrapped up. I had hoped to go to the solemn assembly at Falls Church tonight, but I've got to catch up on some things at home.

Hope to see you soon.

Allen-Webb, Part 3 - Before I finish my thoughts on Webb, I want to know what's up with all the attention devoted to Allen? First the WaPo starts pounding away on Allen and the "macca" controversy -- running front page stories and editorials attacking the guy. Then the New Republic's thinly sourced hit pieces by Ryan Lizza. Then the bizzarre question by West Springfield's own Peggy Fox -- your grandfather was named Felix, a name you share, do you have any Jewish blood?

Now it's the on-line mag, Salon, hitting again with thinly sourced material saying Allen used the "n" word back in 1972. [Debunked by the Allen campaign here.] See also, hotline.

This kind of attack -- the borking by proxy -- doesn't endear me to the Webb campaign.

There's been no coverage of a blatently false advertisement on Allen forcing warriors to wear useless flak jackets. See here for the facts by the Anneburg Foundation. I note that it is also being run against Rick Santorum.

As Daniel Pulliam observes in the GetReligion blog,

Ryan Lizza’s articles in the New Republic didn’t happen in a vacuum. I doubt he woke up one more and thought, “I need to investigate Sen. Allen’s racial attitudes.” I also doubt Michael Scherer Salon thought “I will call all of Sen. Allen’s teammates from his time as the quarterback of the University of Virginia to find out if he said some racist things back in the day.” The article is pretty much a one-source article with a bunch of phone calls that turned up little confirming information and even more contradictory information.

And to cap it all off, the issues raised in the book by Sen. Allen’s sister Jennifer Allen, “Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach’s Daughter,” have been around for six years (surviving Allen’s first election) and no one seemed to notice until now. So what gives?

Who is out to trash a potential leading candidate of the religious right?

Finally, as Marc Ambinder notes in Hotline, there's been no similar scrutiny by the MSM of Webb's pro-Confederacy, anti-feminist writings: "James Webb's remarks about ethnicity and women have been virtually ignored."

Allen - Webb, Part 2. I was introducted to Jim Webb well over 25 years ago by my father. I have faithfully read all his books and always browse through library book sales and used book stores looking for copies of his novels. I have quite a collection.

Someday, some smart producer will buy A Country Such as This and turn it into a miniseries, like then did with Herman Wouk's Winds of War. The book was nominated for both the Pulitzer and Pen/Faulkner awards [source]. It covers the period from 1951-1976 through the eyes of three Naval Acadamy grads who agree to reconvene in Annapolis in 25 years. Reading the book back then, I couldn't help but wonder if Webb saw himself more in Red Lescynski (the Navy Pilot and POW, who is entranced by the Orient) or Judd Smith (the Marine who ran for Congress). What is interesting is how the moveon crowd has flocked to Webb. Obviously, they have never read this book especially in the way it skewers their spiritual mother, Jane Fonda, who appears, thinly veiled, in the character of Dorothy Dingenfelder (third midshipman Joe Dingenfelder's wife).

There has been a lot of talk of turning Fields of Fire into a movie. This was Webb's first book and has been called the finest Vietnam novel by Tom Wolfe. Supposedly, Webb himself was going to finance and produce this movie, but he put it on the shelf so he could run for the Senate.

I'm not going to do a comprehensive review of Webb's books -- indeed, I haven't been very impressed with his latest output. Nevertheless, one other book deserves mention, Something to Die For belies anyone who might say Webb's opposition to Iraq is just a matter of political expediency. It's his view of how the insiders in DC can manipulate a country in fighting a needless war -- in the case of this book, it's a showdown in Eritrea (yes, a far cry from Iraq). In fact, there's one scene in the book that took my breath away. I had to put the book down and was in near shock for about 5 minutes.

Anyway, his books reflect the views of a pro-military hawk who would be the ideal to serve in a Ronald Reagan administration. Someone who would resign because Reagan wasn't standing up to the Democrats who wanted to leave the military weak. And definitely not the views of someone in the Tom Harkin - John Kerry mold. Which is why it is so puzzling to me that he is the nominee of the Democratic party.

Last, while I'm on the subject of Webb books, not to be overlooked is The Nightingale's Song by Robert Timberg which looks at five NA grads, John McCain, John Poindexter, Bud McFarlane, Jim Webb, and Oliver North. (I'd love to see a new addition of this reflecting changes in these men since the first edition).

Allen v. Webb - Virginia has an interesting Senate race - both the Democrat and the Republican are claiming to be the heir to Ronald Reagan. I'll have more to say, I'm sure. For now, here's Webb's ad claiming to be following Reagan and Allen's response.

Or as Hotline lablels it, Allen's first negative ad. As Hotline properly notes, Allen's ad is flat out wrong when it describes Webb as serving the Reagan administration for only 10 months -- that was his term as SecNav. He served much longer in the administration as I recall. Also, the ad indicates Webb resigned for opposing Reagan's policy. As I recall, that's absolutely right -- Reagan promised a 600* ship navy, then backed away. Jim Webb resigned in order to hold Reagan accountable.

Having said all that, what surprised me most about Webb's ad is that it describes him as "...Soldier, Scholar, Leader..." and then Webb says he approved this ad. I don't think so. Webb was a member of the United States Marine Corps, not a soldier. It may seem like a semantic point, but it's not to the Marines.

So who will I vote for? I haven't decided yet... Allen was the 2nd best governor Virginia has had during my time here. I also like Webb. more to come...
-------------------------
*Edited from my original mistaken recollection. As Rod pointed out in the comments, President Reagan originally proposed a 600 ship navy, not the 500 I had originally recalled.