Something Eternal

The United Methodist General Board of Discipleship has a little publication called A Guide To Prayer For All God's People. It follows the daily Revised Common Lectionary through its three year cycle, and includes a section called "Readings for Reflection". Below are two of these readings from the Fourth Sunday in Advent. I encountered them three years ago, and they have stuck with me, their meaning deepening and growing stronger over time.

Prayer is a daring venture into speech that juxtaposes our words with the sharply alive words that pierce and divide soul and spirit, joints and marrow, pitilessly exposing every thought and intetntion of the heart (Heb. 4:12-13; Rev 1:16). If we had kept our mouths shut we would not have involved ourselves in such a relentlessly fearsome exposure. If we had been content to speak to the women and men and children in the neighborhood we could have gotten by with using words in ways that would have them thinking well of us while concealing what we preferred to keep to ourselves. But when we venture into prayer every word may, at any moment, come to mean just what is means and involve us with a holy God who wills our holiness. All we have counted on was some religious small talk, a little numinous gossip, and we are suddenly involved, without intending it and without having calculated the consequences, in something eternal. From Working the Angles by Eugene H. Peterson

Where there is love, there is pain. but whatever our walk in life, this kind of pain is God's way of teaching us how to pray. Everything that happens to us spiritually, everything that causes us to grow, will bring us closer to God if we say yes. This is what spiritual growth mean. It doesn't come from what we do, necessarily, from all our actions and good works. Sometimes it comes from simply sitting and seeing the shambles of what we tried to accomplish, from watching what was seemingly God's work go to pot. You can't do anything about it, but watch. This happened to me. I knew dimly then what I see more clearly today, that this was the moment when God really picked me up and said, "Now I am offering you the union you seek. The other side of my cross is empty. Come, be nailed upon it. This is our marriage bed."

All we can answer in response to that invitation is, "Help me, God! I don't have the courage to climb on this cross." From Soul of My Soul by Catherine de Heuck Doherty

"Spirituality", "prayer" - words we casually toss around without thinking that they link our lives in the most intimate way possible to the God who created the Universe, who calls us to serve and love. Rather than some refuge from the suffering of living and loving, they involve us most intimately with those things that lie at the heart of being truly human. If we enter with our eyes open, we might just realize that we are suddenly surrounded by an abyss, with the only possible means of escape being that call from the cross.

At that moment of realization, as we are faced with the reality that God means business, not some warm fuzzy or the shallow success of the world, we are entering the presence of the living God with the fear and trembling that comes from understanding that love and pain, community and solitude, life and death, are linked in this God. We cannot have one without the other. We cannot be alive in and for God without dying. We cannot love without knowing that love will be answered by rejection and sorrow. We cannot be with except for also being without. All the platitudes concerning Divine Presence, extraordinary grace, and salvation itself become hollow unless we are willing to face the extraordinary danger we encounter in prayer. Unless we are willing to risk loss, and failure, and death with the same equanimity and even acceptance that we do love and success and life, we are not worthy to be called His disciples.

"Venal, Shallow, Small Men"

It seems inevitable, I suppose.

Upon announcing his plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Barack Obama also began a process that would review the case files for every detainee. The problem for the new administration, however, is that there are no files.

It should surprise no one, really. Considering recent reports that one or two released previously from Gitmo are actively involved in terrorism should have been a clue, not that everyone held at the Cuban concentration camp is evil, but that the Bush Administration was clearly incompetent at doing something as simple as keeping the United States safe from terrorists. Steven Benen highlights from a report in The Washington Post:

President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is "scattered throughout the executive branch," a senior administration official said. The executive order Obama signed Thursday orders the prison closed within one year, and a Cabinet-level panel named to review each case separately will have to spend its initial weeks and perhaps months scouring the corners of the federal government in search of relevant material.

The title comes from John Cole, who also said, in the same piece:

Why is this repeatedly framed as a problem for Obama, when what this really is is evidence that the Bush administration accomplished NOTHING with Guantanamo. This is not a problem for Obama. This is proof that the last administration was a group of incompetent hacks. Bush decided that he had the right to detain people forever, do whatever he wanted to them, and they had no rights whatsoever, he ruined our international reputation and most likely violated dozens of laws, yet he let these allegedly dangerous people go. Why? What was the purpose of Gitmo, anyway? Why do all this stuff and STILL let the dangerous guys go free?

Because they had no idea what they were doing. They were so intent on DWTFTW, to hell with domestic and international law, that they paid no attention to the fact that torture and abuse doesn’t lead to good evidence and means that you can not prosecute.

--snip--

The moral of this story is not the danger for Obama going forward with his Gitmo decommissioning, the moral is that when venal, shallow, small men are given unfettered power and authority, they do incompetent, stupid, and evil things.(emphasis added)

We've been saying it for years; I've been saying it for a couple years and every time I do some right-wing nutjob tells me I don't know what I'm talking about, there's no evidence, yadda-yadda. Well, I've got your evidence right here, folks, and it's just more proof that the Bush folks were just awful.

The Genius Of Matt Taibbi

Over at Alternet, the Rolling Stone writer does a masterful job taking down Thomas Friedman's latest hack-attack, Hot, Flat, and Crowded. I think I'm in a minority - I read The Lexus and the Olive Tree and thought it among the dumbest, most pointless books ever written. The World is Flat was an insult to the intelligence of beavers, let alone thinking persons. I was disgusted with Friedman's cheerleading of Bush's War in Iraq, and his lack of any sense of culpability when it all went down the crapper. I say "in the minority" because I know there are some who read this blog who like his writing, and have enjoyed his work.

Matt Taibbi, on the other hand, hits the moustache on the nose, as it were, with this one. He not only doesn't like what Friedman has to say. He doesn't like the way he says the things he says. He doesn't like his odd "research" habits. The following passage from Taibbi's article is a masterful destruction of the lack of logic, thought, and any real sense in Friedman. It's also funny as all get out.

In Hot, Flat and Crowded, the money shot comes when Friedman starts doodling on a napkin over lunch with Moisés Naím, editor of Foreign Policy magazine. The pre-lunching Friedman starts drawing, and the wisdom just comes pouring out:

I laid out my napkin and drew a graph showing how there seemed to be a rough correlation between the price of oil, between 1975 and 2005, and the pace of freedom in oil-producing states during those same years.

Friedman then draws his napkin-graph, and much to the pundit's surprise, it turns out that there is almost an exact correlation between high oil prices and "unfreedom"! The graph contains two lines, one showing a rising-and-then-descending slope of "freedom," and one showing a descending-and-then-rising course of oil prices.

Friedman plots exactly four points on the graph over the course of those 30 years. In 1989, as oil prices are falling, Friedman writes, "Berlin Wall Torn Down." In 1993, again as oil prices are low, he writes, "Nigeria Privatizes First Oil Field." 1997, oil prices still low, "Iran Calls for Dialogue of Civilizations." Then, finally, 2005, a year of high oil prices: "Iran Calls for Israel's destruction."
--snip--
I looked at [the graph] and thought: "Gosh, what a neat trick!" Then I sat down and drew up my own graph, called "Size of Valerie Bertinelli's Ass, 1985-2008 Versus Happiness." It turns out that there is an almost exact correlation!
--snip--
That was so much fun, I drew another one! This one is called "American Pork Belly Prices Versus What Midgets Think About Australia 1972-2002."
--snip--
Or how about this one, called "Number of One-Eyed Retarded Flies in the State of North Carolina Versus Likelihood of Nuclear Combat on Indian Subcontinent."
--snip--
Obviously this sounds like a flippant analysis, but that's more or less exactly what Friedman is up to here. If you're going to draw a line that measures the level of "freedom" across the entire world and on that line plot just four randomly selected points in time over the course of 30 years -- and one of your top four "freedom points" in a 30-year period of human history is the privatization of a Nigerian oil field -- well, what the fuck? What can't you argue, if that's how you're going to make your point?

I am so grateful for this wonderful, funny, iconoclastic takedown of one of the principle purveyors of so much that passes for wisdom and insight and even, so help us all, journalistic excellence that I would frame it. I do recommend everyone read it. Click the link. C'mon.

Some Thoughts On Hebrews 10:31

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

One verse, coming at the end of both remonstrance and reassurance. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews is here summing up his approach to Holy living. Like Jesus, like Paul, this author assures that the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus is sufficient; he also warns that spurning this wonderful gift, even after full knowledge of it is offered, entails full judgment. We are faced, of course, with the question of grace. Where is the Divine grace, that outpouring, prodigal love of God for all of humanity, if it is turned away so easily, by mere human rejection? Because the author, like Jesus and Paul, is steeped in the Jewish Scriptures of the time, and sees little excuse in a claim either of ignorance or apathy. The clarity of the offer of God's love and care has always been there. We stand before not just a God of love, but a God of justice as well.

It is, indeed, a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. I sometimes think we forget that in our myriad attempts to shrink God down to fit whatever agenda we may have. That line from Bonhoeffer still echoes in my mind, and it resonates now - "When God calls a man, He bid him come and die" - as I think on this single verse from Hebrews. God is, indeed, love. God is, indeed, the God who comforts the mourners, lifts up the weak, stands with those who stand for others oppressed and trodden down by the powers and principalities that rule this world, spiritual and temporal. Yet, this is also the God who did not keep his own Son from dying, rejected and alone, outside the city gates, the Divine Fatherly face turned away. God is wonderful, loving and tender to be sure, but also terrible. The path upon which we trod is watered with the tears and blood of so many who have gone before us, stricken by a world that not only does not know this God who created it, but does not want the loving care this God offers, and will go out of its way to destroy all those emissaries from God who offer restoration in love.

The call of the world to ease and comfort, to reject the nonsense of death and resurrection, of crosses and spears and sponges of vinegar; even the call to reject love as it really is, in all its pain and wonder and mystery, for the simplicity of childhood revelries and romantic nonsense and sexual passion, reminds us that the love of God is the love that leads to life, it is true. But it is also the love that calls us to our deaths, to ourselves, to our own desires (including our physical and simplistic emotional desires), and that always feels like death, doesn't it?

It is, indeed, a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, because this is neither the good guy/bad guy God of childhood, nor is it the God of romantic reassurance, or bourgeois comfort, or American patriotism (I suppose one could insert most countries names in there, if you wish). This is the living God who created the Universe, who sent his Son to die, and calls us in love, but also to understand the implications of this call. We are called to serve in a world where service is held in contempt, and the love of God - real love which is always about living outside oneself - is rejected. We are called, in other words, to die, in many little ways, and sometimes in the only way that matters. The promise of Divine Presence brings us hope that this death is not in vain; the assurance in faith of the nearness of God in our mourning does not make it any less mourning.

We are dealing here with the mystery that is the path of the Christian - a path of peace, of love, of gentleness, patience, self-control, in a world where all those things are demeaned, belittled, subject to scorn and ridicule. The way is straight, and the gate is narrow, and when we enter that door, we are entering in to a new reality - one of love, where simple Presence can be enough, to be sure - where we are no longer the subject of our own lives. Indeed, we are called to hate our own lives. In the name of the Love of the living God.

Gotta Lie

It has come to light that a CBO report on the proposed stimulus plan, a report Congressional Republicans have been sing as fodder to push back against Pres. Obama's proposal, doesn't exist.

This week, congressional Republicans seized on a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showing the limited short-term stimulative effects of the Democrats' proposed rescue package. It's also led to widespread media coverage undermining the White House's arguments about the benefits of a stimulus plan.

There is, however, a problem. The CBO report, as it's been described, doesn't exist.

--snip--

It appears that the preliminary, incomplete numbers put together by the CBO were distributed to a small handful of lawmakers in both parties earlier in the week. Someone (Republican congressional offices) then passed the misleading data onto the AP, which predictably ran with the incomplete numbers, telling the public that it "will take years before an infrastructure spending program proposed by President-elect Barack Obama will boost the economy."

Other major media outlets quickly followed, and voila, Republicans had a talking point: "Boehner and other Republican aides roamed the Capitol press galleries, flogging the CBO numbers."

Obviously, congressional Republicans were less concerned about reality than undermining an economic rescue package. But as DDay noted, let's not brush past media culpability: "It's pretty clear that the media has no ability to or interest in understanding this stuff, because then they wouldn't have their precious 'conflict.' So they regurgitate whatever some GOP staffer feeds them, just to spice things up."

It's like they can't help themselves.

Prophecy Is Fulfilled

This past week, America celebrated the inauguration of a new President. It celebrated the coming of the new, the ushering in of a complete change in our political direction. Most important, it celebrated the arrival of our first African-American President. That our President is who he is, is a sign. A very conservative member of our Church told Lisa on Tuesday, after her morning Bible study sat and watched the swearing in and listened to his inaugural address, "Well, prophecy is fulfilled today. Forty years ago, Martin Luther King said he had a dream, and today it is fulfilled."

Last night, we were treated to dinner with two couples from church. We could not help but speak of the events of the past week. I could not tell you what their politics were, and I honestly do not care, but one thing one gentleman said struck me. He spoke of how moved he was, watching the events on television, as the camera panned around the crowd, and how it looked like the world. Indeed. Black and white faces cheek by jowl, crying and cheering our new President. That was all of us represented out there, America as it really is - all sorts of different faces and colors and creeds all together celebrating the arrival of Barack Obama.

Now, I don't believe that Obama's election means our days of institutionalized racism are now, officially, behind us. It is a tremendous leap forward, a marker we should celebrate. His reception by a grateful nation is indicative, I think, that most realize how important not just his policies will be, but how important he is not only as an individual, but as an American of African descent. I couldn't help but think, as I watched Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts bungle the oath, of another Chief Justice, Roger Taney. Taney wrote the infamous Dred Scot v Sanford decision, which upheld the Fugitive Slave Act. In his opinion, Taney roamed far beyond the question of the constitutionality of the law itself, and asserted that "a black man has no rights a white man" needs to honor or respect in any way. Taney asserted that even free blacks were not citizens; being black of skin was enough to disqualify one from being American. This was indeed the law of the land until the post-Civil War constitutional amendments overturned Dred Scot, providing citizenship to all former slaves.

I was recently accused of believing that, because of the stain of American racism, I think American history is far worse than that of any other country. On the contrary. I think our history is remarkable. I also think it is remarkably horrible in certain instances. My question to the person who made this accusation was simple - to what other country's history am I as an American answerable? We have made giant steps this week, and I believe that, in a very large measure, King's vision has been redeemed. In that vast crowd, and in homes and churches, libraries and even theaters that broadcast the inauguration, people came together to celebrate America as it is, in all our glorious differences.

As we move forward in the ensuing weeks and months, I think it will be important to remember that Barack Obama's elevation to the Presidency has given America something for which we should all be proud. We now understand, in a very deep way, that difference is just that. We are, all of us, in King's words, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, joined together in this journey of being America.

Saturday Rock Show

I've seen the Woodstock film innumerable times, but without a doubt, this is my favorite performance. I had a discussion with a friend just yesterday on CS&N, remarking that I love their harmonies, they way the melody seemed to float along, with the harmonies being the melody. "Suite Judy Blue Eyes" was written for Judy Collins, with whom Stephen Stills had a brief, intense affair.

More Right-Wing Marital Advice My Sister Will Agree With

I suppose I should blame Travis at Sadly, No! for linking to this steaming pile of manure. I mean, how can anyone take the following as anything other than parody, unless of course you are a desperate nincompoop?

I was just talking with a formerly-married guy about just how true this is, who was not only complaining himself, but also recounting another married guy's complaints. Many women simply do not buy this, but guys are pretty miserable when they're working hard and doing all the stuff they're told to do to be a good husband, and yet aren't getting sex reliably, or without begging and arguments, from their wives.

Among the sentences never spoken in human history: "Your Honor, I was compelled to have an affair. My wife was fucking me too damn much."

I really don't think women get how important this is to guys. Not just in the negative way, in that a lack of sex leads to all sorts of bad attitudes and bad behavior by men. But in a positive way -- it really doesn't take an awful lot to wrap a guy around your finger. The word "pussy-whipped" wasn't invented out of thin air. It describes a real condition. A guy getting laid a lot is noticeably, even oddly, agreeable when it comes to his partner.

And, just so women know: for most guys, I am guessing that the women they remember the most -- the ones that stick in their minds, the ones they never quite get over -- are the ones that were the most aggressive and accessible sexually. Want to make an impression on a guy that will last forever? It doesn't have anything to do with haircuts or fashionable purses.

My only comment is: Is it any wonder a guy who thinks this way doesn't get laid very often?

"I Won"

This article from Politico.com is a masterful presentation of really stupid reporters not quite getting it.

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

I am quite sure there are folks who will consider such a response "arrogant", but it isn't. It is a statement of fact. Obama won, in part because people trusted that he was calm enough, smart enough, and willing to do what was necessary to carry us through our current troubles.

The following, from unnamed "sources" (my guess is Boehner, but that is, again, just a guess), is a masterful demonstration of why the Republicans are no longer in power.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

--snip--

“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after meeting with Obama.

“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the size of the package.

“Government can’t solve this problem,” he said.

The first part refers to this, apparently.

One of the Bush administration's stated objections to the Senate package was language that would reverse a provision in the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act (PL 109-171) that created a disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to provide large discounts on some drugs to family planning clinics and university health centers (Higa, CQ Today, 9/26). As a result of the Deficit Reduction Act language, the cost of birth control at health centers has risen dramatically. The bill was supported by both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/26).

In a statement, the White House said the House bill "will not provide short-term stimulus or long-term growth for the economy. ... Instead, the bill would simply increase government spending including self-perpetuating entitlement spending by tens of billions of dollars. If this bill were presented to the president, he would veto the bill" (CQ Today, 9/26).

Yeah, Boehner hit that one on the nose, didn't he . . .

As for the whole "government can't solve the problem" line, well, no one is suggesting it can. Not even President Obama. But, sitting around and doing nothing, and insisting on doing nothing - that's why people go rid of Republicans in the first place.

There's more, following immediately, which I just adore.

Reid said a Congressional Budget Office report that says the stimulus funds won’t be pumped into the economy until 2010 doesn’t provide an accurate picture.

Republicans have used the report to back up their argument against a near $1 trillion package. But Reid said Obama Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told them CBO only analyzed 40 percent of the bill.

By all means block the bill because it will take time to pump all that money in to the economy through expanded government infrastructure spending and the like, delaying the money even further.

The Republicans don't quite get it. Neither do establishment reporters, either, I think, considering the way this story is written.

Post Opinions II - Charles Krauthammer

I think all I can say about Charles Krauthammer's column is this: Did he hear the same speech I did?

Post Opinions I - Michael Gerson

The reviews of Inauguration Day are still coming in, as columnists who had yet to make their views public finally get their say. It is well that this is so, even if those views I will be looking at here are odd precisely because they seem so out of tune with the general national spirit of joy, of confidence in our new President, and relief that the era of Bush is now in the rear-view mirror.

Michael Gerson, whose one claim to fame was being a speech writer for former Pres. Bush, exhibits what I can only describe as a split-personality in his column. After recognizing the historic character of the inauguration of our first African-American President, he then asks a series of questions that show a remarkably tin ear to our historic moment.

If the outcome had been different in November, would John McCain's inaugural coverage have been quite as worshipful as President Obama's -- during which the "shiver" up the leg of journalists finally became full-fledged convulsions? Why were the biblical references in Obama's inaugural speech not considered a coded assault on the Constitution, as George W. Bush's were sometimes viewed? And I can only imagine the cascades of hilarity and derision that would have come had Bush messed up the inaugural oath, no matter the cause.

To the first, one can only say that, had John McCain won in November (not likely, but certainly technically possible), no, in all likelihood there would have been very little jubilation and celebration, for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure where "worshipful" enter in to the picture, except for the odd, fact-free notion that liberals and others "worship" Obama as a "Savior". As to messing up the oath, the fault lies totally with Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, who could have read the thing off a tiny card.

It is this double-mindedness that haunts the entire column. He wants to be magnanimous. He wants to celebrate. Yet, like many on the right, he just cannot except that Barack Obama is our President, and that many, many people, including many people who voted for John McCain, are happy at the fact. He makes this double-mindedness a bit more clear further down, explicitly celebrating the racial nature of the day - he discusses a meeting he had with Rep. John Lewis on the matter of our first African-American President - yet, hinting at a certain disgruntlement over the new ideological bent, not just of the Administration, but the country in general.

But there was a second, less sympathetic, Obama enthusiasm at work. In a Newsweek essay, Michael Hirsh mentioned Obama's racial achievement. But he went on to say that "there's something else that I'm even happier about -- positively giddy. . . . What Obama's election means, above all, is that brains are back." Hirsh declared that the Obama era means the defeat of "yahooism" and "jingoism" and "flag-pin shallowness" and "religious zealotry" and "anti-intellectualism." Obama is a "guy who keeps religion in its proper place -- in the pew."

There is much not to like with Hirsh's assessment, I will grant Gerson at least that much. Yet, one cannot disguise the fact that the Bush Administration, from its first days until its last, was hardly a beacon of enlightenment or intellectual depth. Not that these are prerequisites for Executive office; indeed, the only true "intellectual" to ever hold the office, Woodrow Wilson, had a mixed record at best.

Yet, the lack of intellectual curiosity, of seeing the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake as a joyous adventure, and the hardened anti-science of so much of the specialized executive areas - from "abstinence only" sex education to dumbing down speeches park rangers were allowed to give at national parks so creationists wouldn't be insulted by scientific facts - stand in such stark contrast to one simple, outstanding quality of our new President. Barack Obama is not just intelligent; he is not just intellectually curious; he has a knack for using diverse knowledge and understanding, and integrating it in to practical ideas. His faith, certainly, lies at the heart of his life, yet he does not allow that faith to tie his hands, or blind him to realities he must face. Or, perhaps better put, precisely because his is a humble, rather than exultant, faith, it recognizes its limits. In many ways, Barack Obama is a model of a new kind of Christian statesman.

For all that he wants to praise Barack Obama, and celebrate with the vast majority of Americans, and support our new President as he helps us help ourselves through all that is to come, I believe Michael Gerson suffers from the same sadness many liberals felt in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, and 2000. Not just a party, but an entire set of ideas, principles, and guides for practical governance have been handed a defeat of historic proportions. One cannot help but feel a little sympathy for the Michael Gerson's of this world, even if we should all wish he could set aside his grievances for the day and celebrate with us.

Executive Orders

I used to read Tom Clancy novels. I considered them popcorn for the brain; kind of a fun treat, but certainly not nutritious. Then came the two-parter, Debt of Honor and Executive Orders. Not content to continually wage imaginary wars with the Soviet Union or the IRA or have Islamic terrorists build a faulty atom bomb in a cave and destroy the Super Bowl (the Super Bowl!!!), he actually killed off all but two members of Congress and President with - wait for it - a jetliner crashing in to the Capitol (this after a brief war with Japan, started by the Japanese, of course). Then, without Congress to actually make laws, the new President manages to get caught up with a bio-attack by Iran (it's Ebola!!!). These multiple fantasies of political destruction and hyper-war were just a bit much for me, so I swore off Clancy just as I swore off popcorn.

Today, Pres. Obama (Lord, I love typing that . . .) signed an Executive Order of which any American should be proud - Guantanamo Bay prison camp will be closed no later than a year from today. All those horrid awful mean filthy terrorists, the majority of whom have been released because they weren't actually terrorists at all, may (or may not) enter the American prison and judicial system, where actual courts of real laws will deal with them.

Today's orders send "an unmistakable signal that our actions in defense of liberty will be as just as our cause," Obama told State Department employees. "We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it."

That about sums it up. You don't claim to wage a war for freedom by curtailing it. You don't uphold the values of the Constitution by deciding, unilaterally, that the Constitution doesn't apply to everyone. You don't defend America by insisting that some of our freedoms just don't work.

You bear the burden. We bear the burden. We pay the price. This is what Kennedy meant. This is what Obama means. These are Executive Orders in which one can be proud.

I Love This Photo

Getty Images via Washington Post

My Last Word On This Subject

Revising and extending. . .

I'm quite tired of the abortion debate. The country has reached a consensus of sorts. We are a pro-choice nation, with restrictions. De facto restrictions exist in most rural areas, where abortion providers are non-existent (I think North Dakota has one ob-gyn who performs them, but he comes in from Minnesota; that's one for all of North Dakota). Yet, for some, that just isn't enough. For some, all of our politics, all of their religion, boils down to the holy fetus. It is their idol.

If, as some so believe, abortion is state-sanctioned mass murder; if, as some believe, being pro-choice is supporting a holocaust of millions of murdered children; if, as some believe, my pro-choice position is akin to Stalinism and Nazism; if all this is true for them, my challenge is this - don't sit around and whine. Grow a pair and do something about it. Bomb an abortion clinic. Shoot an abortion doctor. Kidnap a young woman entering a woman's clinic to protect the life of her fetus.

After all, if it is some transcendent moral evil to allow abortion; if abortion is a Holocaust, sitting around and calling liberals names isn't enough. Our politics has obviously failed to protect the holy fetus. Do what is necessary to stop the slaughter. Man up, do what is necessary to stop this evil in our time.

Or, shut the fuck up.

It May Be A New Day, But The Press Is Still Dumb

One would hope for better, but smart don't happen overnight. The headline on this story is misleading, because the emphasis was not on the first "100 Days" (which is enough stupid anyway), but on Obama's First Day.

Renee Montagne interviewed Stephen Hess from Brookings, and the entire thing was not about the "100 Days", or the monumental challenges he faces. She even asked, "Will this first day be remembered on his last day?"

Unfortunately, I will remember that stupid question for the rest of my life.

Rule Of Law

Apparently, some Republicans in the United States Senate are afraid the Justice Department might actually mete out some justice.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee are delaying for up to a week a vote on Eric Holder's nomination to be Attorney General, with some saying they want more time to consider his record on torture.

Part of my concern relates to his statements at the hearing with regard to torture and what his intentions are toward our intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was.(John Cornyn - R, TX)

Last time I checked, doing illegal stuff that someone told you was legal was still illegal. Military personnel are not only not required to obey an illegal order, they can report it and have the superior court-martialed. Same rule applies here, one would think.

Joseph Lowery's Benediction

"In the joy of a new beginning . . ."



Beautiful. Moving. Faithful.

Amen. And amen. And finally . . . AMEN!

Words To Work By

Barack Hussein Obama is now our 44th President. From Think Progress comes a transcript of his inaugural address.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

A day of celebration, to be sure. Before too long, perhaps before the sun sets, it will also be a day to begin. Together.

Content Of Their Character

One of the great thefts of our time has been the appropriation of this single line from a speech by King by the American Right. King's vision of a time when skin color would count for less than the merits of each individual as a human being is certainly in keeping with his very American vision of justice. Yet, it is also a deeply Christian, eschatological vision.

Part of my disdain for this appropriation is simply this - the price to be paid for reaching this time has yet to be made by those who have decided to ignore the color of skin. In other words, the right is still filled with the bilge of racism; it is deeply ingrained in our national psyche, and while we have indeed made great strides, as events tomorrow will demonstrate, we still have a long way to go. In the end, American racism is not about individual bigotry. It is about an entire country making amends for centuries of dehumanization. Racism is about power, and its lack. It is about accepting responsibility for our own participation in structures that benefit some, while denying entry to others. While we should most certainly move away from individual acts of hatred, we should also recognize the simple fact that ours is still a deeply racist society. We have to say this again and again, accept our complicity in this racism, and do what we can to change it, not to participate in it, to say it again and again.

The Right denies this. They want no part of accepting their part in the on-going racism of America. They have no desire to accept their own complicity in our nation's history of racial violence, dehumanization, cruelty, and state-sanctioned murder. They seem to believe that saying "I never owned slaves" is enough. They seem to believe that not participating in a lynching is something others should see as a mark of virtue.

While King's struggle was certainly a legal one - he wanted the entire structure of segregation, north and south, de jure and de facto dismantled - it also transcended simple legal redress. He was pursuing Justice, God's justice, the Kingdom of God. It is a struggle that will always be ongoing, and we can never lag behind in our commitment to it. It is not enough to simply decide to take King at his words, when the end result is to judge those of a different skin color of less worth using a different set of criteria. This is dressing one's bigotry up in a nice suit. No price is paid to those whose mangled bodies and lives line our history, their blood crying out from the earth.

Only when we all can stand without fear, admitting for all the world that this history is a living thing, a blood-soaked, hate-filled thing that hovers over all of us, embraces us, calls us to the easy way, to take the benefits offered without merit can we start to appropriate this part of King's dream. Only when those who still hold hate in their hearts admit to that hate, and are willing to pay a price to rid themselves of it, can I listen with anything like equanimity to those who prattle on about "content of their character".

Music For Your Monday

I've never been a big fan of Madonna. I remember the first video I saw - her writhing in the street to "Burning Up". I also saw her performance at the first MTV Video Music Awards, as she writhed around on stage in a wedding dress. Big deal.

Over the years, though, she has proved to be mistress of her own domain. Far smarter than one would have imagined from her early exposure, she has managed to always stay in the public eye, either through her music or one controversy or another - she is an exemplar of the show-biz motto that there is no such thing as bad press. She also continues to change and grow, a kind of David Bowie without Bowie's fake intellectual pretensions.

There have been a few of her songs that have stood out for me, for different reasons.

I think "Live To Tell" was the first time she wasn't presented in a video as a sex symbol. Sitting quite demurely in a chair, in a chaste dress, her hair up, her vocals understated, the song was for a forgettable movie her then-husband, Sean Penn had done, At Close Range. I still don't know why it stands out for me, unless it was just the fact that it was so different from anything she had done before.



"Justify My Love" may not be the best erotic song ever written - Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing" probably has that honor - but there's something about that synth opening, her husky whisper. It's like the feel of skin underneath one's lips. Geez, now, I'm getting all sweaty . . .



I liked "Ray of Light" almost instantly, and still do. Don't ask me why. The sound here was taken from a tour rehearsal, overlaid with the original promo video.

Connections

G. Bromley Oxnam had a dream. He wanted to have a United Methodist seminary in the nation's capital. There was a seminary at Westminster College in Northern Maryland, and he wanted it moved. In the mid-1960's, he got his wish - being a Bishop of the United Methodist Church had its advantages. He also managed a real coup. He stole L Harold DeWolf from Boston University as a center around which young scholars - J. Philip Wogaman, James Logan, and later William B. "Bobby" McClain would congregate.

DeWolf was famous as the last great exemplar of the school of thought known as personalism. A kind of realist religious philosophy started at the end of the 19th century, it was a vigorous, lively, and by the mid-1960's withering form of philosophical reasoning. DeWolf had another claim to fame as well; he had been the dissertation adviser to a young Baptist minister from Georgia named Martin King (DeWolf's role in the plagiarism scandal that would haunt King after his death has never been revealed fully). When DeWolf died, he donated his personal library to the library of the seminary he was called to help create - Wesley Theological Seminary.

One day, perusing the stacks at the library, I came across a small copy, in German, of Immanuel Kant's Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft, The Critique of Pure Reason. On the inside cover was a book plate; this copy had been DeWolf's. I stood and flipped the pages. It had been well-read; there were many underlinings in pencil, different colored pens, and margin notes that were barely legible. One, however. leaped out at me. In very clear letters, a section had been bracketed, and next to the brackets were the words, "Show Martin".

I stood there in the library and thought, "In my hand I'm holding a book that was once held, and read, by Martin Luther King, Jr." There is a sense of awe and wonder in that, even after all these years. It's such a human connection, a small thing, perhaps. Yet very real. It is a memory I shall always cherish.

How Long?

I was going to pick a nit with this, but only a literalist would get all caught up with the fact it's closer to forty-one. Am I right?

I waited patiently for the Lord
He inclined and heard my cry
He brought me up out of the pit
Out of the miry clay

I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song

How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long...how long...how long...
How long...to sing this song

He set my feet upon a rock
And made my footsteps firm
Many will see
Many will see and fear

I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song

How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long...how long...how long...

Lest anyone think this is an example of Obama worship, or anything like that, I am referring here to the weird and wonderful reality that, forty years after one great man is murdered in pursuit of justice for all, another is being inaugurated to defend justice for all. Considering the stony road African-Americans have trod, it does seem appropriate that "40" comes up now.

Bush's Lasting Legacy

Two days left, and it seems wrong to kick a guy when he's down and almost out. But what the heck, right?

Osama bin Laden is not only still alive and still at large. He is laughing because, really, in the end, he beat Bush. We are more vulnerable, less prepared, and less secure seven and a half years after 9/11 than before.

That's Bush's real legacy. He got beat by a sick guy living in caves on the Pakistan/Afghanistan frontier. And thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of others are also dead. All those headstones should be Bush's monument.

We Don't Need No Stinking Facts

The ability of some people to be outraged over nothing always amazes me. I really don't care how much the inauguration costs, but some people not only care, they manage to get their collective panties in a huge bunch about it. Oddly enough, Eric Boehlert from Media Matters has an excellent piece that shows the way the number - not $150,000,000 but $160,000,000 - came to be. I could be grossly unfair and say that, yet again, some conservatives in the media managed to fund something in their lower colon, pull it out, and write about it. In fact, however, Boehlert points out that the figure, which is roughly four times the figure for the second Bush inaugural festivities, includes something never included before - the cost of security.

That cost is not included when people note the second Bush inaugural cost $42,000,000. In fact, Boehlert is quite clear that the costs of the two events, without adding in the security costs, are virtually identical, $45,000,000 for Obama versus the aforementioned $42,000,000 for Bush in 2005.

I do hope that those who have been hyperventilating about this issue might be able to save money on high blood pressure medication now.

The Cost Of Real Life And Love

With Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Observed) on Monday, the day before we inaugurate the first African-American President, I was thinking of James Baldwin. A writer of immense talent and passion, a man of multiple identities - a writer, a black man in a country where those two words didn't seem to go together very well (to put it mildly), a gay man in a world that thought such a person was diseased, a seer with more clarity precisely because he saw from so many angles at once - his words have always inspired awe in me. In a small paperback volume entitled The Fire Next Time, Baldwin included both that long essay, and a shorter letter to his nephew. Both concern the human toll of racism on the Baldwin family. Both concern Baldwin's dawning realization that, while anger is certainly understandable, the organization of hatred in to an ideology for African-Americans would leave them no better than their white oppressors. Thus, while fascinated with the Nation of Islam, for example, he writes in "The Fire Next Time" with a deep sadness concerning his interview with Elijah Mohammed, a man he wanted to admire, but for whom he felt only pity.

There is a nice little page with various quotes from Baldwin. I thought I'd just toss a few out there.

Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law.

I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.

Love does not begin and end the way we seem to think it does. Love is a battle, love is a war; love is a growing up.

Love him and let him love you. Do you think anything else under heaven really matters?

Baldwin lived his mature, declining years in France, because America, his home, the land he loved even if that was not returned, was too small for him. Even as we celebrate Barack Obama's ascension to the White House, and remember Baldwin's contemporary, King, who also understood the high cost of love and hate, and would pay for both with his life, I think it is important to remember James Baldwin who could see so clearly what others thought was only shadow.

Love is the most dangerous, almost impossible thing in the world. That is why it is the most necessary thing in the world.

Saturday Rock Show

The early 1980's were probably an interesting time to be, say 18 to 24 years old in Britain. Some of the most interesting, inventive music was emerging from the wreckage of punk. One of those groups that managed to crawl out from under that particular pile was Midge Ure's Ultravox. Ure would go on to help write, record, and produce a little song called "Do They Know It's Christmas" and organize BandAid and later LiveAid. Ultravox's biggest UK hit - to the point that it drove some folks nuts because it just seemed to be everywhere - was "Vienna". I have the multi-disc set from LiveAid, where they performed this and their other big radio hit, "Dancing With Tears In My Eyes", and this song is just better, even though the electric violin is painfully out of tune.

Down The Road A Bit Further

I was a wee young seminarian was the time I first heard the story of St. Thomas Aquinas; after many years working on his Summa Theologia, a compendium of all theological knowledge, he gave it all up, unfinished, and spent the few remaining years of his life in quiet contemplation. All those who came to ask him "why" were turned away with a single comment: "It is all straw."

I was horrified. "Straw"? "STRAW"? Anyone who has ever picked up and read even small portions of this masterwork of Christian thought - and for all its daunting reputation, it is one of the few pieces of deep theological writing that is eminently readable - would hardly describe it as straw. Yet, its author did.

Thomas was educated at the University of Paris. His teacher, Albert the Great, Albertus Magnus to give him his Latinate honorific, was perhaps the most subtle thinker of his generation; he divined a relationship between light and water as the source of the phenomenon we call a rainbow, being the first westerner to seek a natural explanation for what had been understood to be, until that time, a Divine act. Under Albert, Thomas soon found himself teaching where he once studied. Medieval theological education consisted of studying the Questiones, and writing a commentary on them. Yet, Thomas went much further. He wrote Biblical commentary, philosophical treatises, including a sustained metaphysical argument for the primacy of being over essence. His Christian apologia, Summa Contra Gentiles sought to answer any and all arguments against the Christian faith from doubters and heretics.

His final project would be nothing more and nothing less than the final word on the Christian faith. Yet, it remains unfinished to this day, a monument not only to his intellect and ambition, but also to the moment he cast it aside for reasons he never revealed in detail.

For years, I rebelled against the idea that it was folly to seek this kind of knowledge. I read voluminously, counting each finished work as another notch in my belt, another check mark against the notion that it was all straw. Barth, Brunner, Bonheoffer, Tillich, Gutierrez, Cone, Gilkey, Moltmann, Augustine, Thomas himself, Luther, Calvin, von Balthasar, Wesley, the Niebuhrs, Schleiermacher, Boulaga - my library is a testament to my insistent belief that it was far from straw, but the solid foundation for an edifice of faith.

Except, the idea nagged. Surely, at some point, all these different ideas, written at different times by men usually long dead, sometimes in languages just as dead, or at least incomprehensible to me, had to cease their hold and some little mark of my own was necessary, right? Yet, as the wordiest of them all, Karl Barth, said, all theology is prolegomena, only the initial clearing away of brush and debris in order to make a clear path through the bramble. If Barth, whose Church Dogmatics exceeds Thomas in length and depth, but resembles the original Summa in one regard at least - it is unfinished - could insist that all his work was nothing more than the initial tentative steps necessary for much greater work to come, what possible contribution could another make? Indeed, at what point does prolegomena stop and the real stuff, the tough, almost impossible work, begin?

The intellectual pursuit of understanding the Christian faith is a valid calling, a noble task, and most certainly a humbling one. Joining a conversation with some of the most gifted and brightest minds of the past two millennia is a privilege. Yet, at some point I discovered that I was not conversing. I was only listening. Furthermore, much of my listening was guided by a lack of any grasp of my own place in this line. I discovered that the "straw" could be blown away at the merest touch of a breeze of doubt, or the challenge of those whose perspective might have the virtue of being more deeply rooted in their own lives than my own.

I no longer hold that reading theology, and thinking the faith, are worthy pursuits for me. I can do it, and enjoy a good theological read for its own sake. The disputes between Bonaventure and Aquinas, the writings of William Ockham, the philosophical theology of Paul Tillich and Langdon Gilkey (especially his Reaping the Whirlwind) still inspire awe in me. I find myself enjoying the simple fact that I sat across the table from a man, John Godsey, who took his doctorate from Karl Barth. Indeed, John Godsey did me the honor and privilege of coming to my wedding. But, and there is always a "but" somewhere, what good is all this study and reading if it doesn't bear fruit in living?

I realize that, like Kierkegaard, I may just be setting up a false dichotomy. Indeed, it most likely is a false dichotomy. One can pursue theological knowledge not only for its own sake, but as a guide to faithful living.

At some point, for this Christian, the debate and discussion, the disagreements and diatribes all had to cease. While I do not hold that it is straw for each and all, for me, right now at this point in time - it is straw. There comes a time when one realizes that all one is doing is reading words. Anyone can read words.

How many people can live their own lives as fully and freely as possible?

That is the real challenge. That is the real question.

What Krugman Said (UPDATE)

With a generous hat tip to Eschaton, all I can say is high thee to the Times and read.

UPDATE: John Amato manages to capture the essence of the Bush years.

Bush gave his last speech to the American people tonight and finally his reign is coming to an end. He looked haggard and old after never fulfilling his promise of eight years of compassion. Instead we got corruption, cronyism, unaccountability, wars, lies, torture and a virus that has infected the entire government that leads us.

The Meta-Politics Of Children

Art Linkletter used to have this television show, back when I was a wee little lad, called Kids Say The Darndest Things. It featured children, well, saying the darndest things. It was meant to be both charming and funny. Very often we treat the words of children as mere sounds without meaning other than pure entertainment. "Isn't that funny?" we say.

Well, not all children say the darndest things. Some say things that go beyond anything we might dream of saying, cutting through the niceties and polite rules we set for ourselves, rules that are, in the end, nothing more than conventions to be flaunted. Nation Public Radio featured a story this morning about a group of children at a school on a Navajo reservation in Arizona who were given a class assignment - write a letter to President-elect Barack Obama. The results are remarkable for their bluntness. Once one gets passed the fact that these come from some of the poorest Americans, or perhaps precisely because of that fact, I think it may just make us look at the world, and politics, a little differently than we had.

Dear Mr. Obama,

My name is Christopher Tinajero. I live in a brick house. All my family needs is food. Whenever I get home and I'm hungry I cannot find anything. We can't go anywhere because we always have no gas to drive. My mama voted for you, Obama, because we are a big fan. When you won we went crazy. I would want you to take away guns so our people don't have to die.

Sincerely,

Christopher Garcia Tinajero

Dear Mr. Obama,

Hello, my name is Alisa Talor Yazzie. My maternal clan is Deer Springs, born for Bitter Water, and my paternal clan is Red Bottom clan, born for Towering House. I am full-blooded Navajo and I am 9 years old. At my school I voted for you, I wanted you to win. I was also a princess at my other school but I gave up my crown. There are a lot of things that are happening in my life. My uncle has kidney failure on both kidneys, but he'll be all right, won't he? I hope so. I just wanted to say hi, and I hope I will be able to see you once. When I get a new phone I will tell you my number.

Sincerely,

Alisa Yazzie

While some of the letters feature requests for money - not exactly a surprise considering the profound poverty and lack of any resources whatsoever - they still feature a refusal to buckle under the weight of the cares these children, at least, are aware of. It is all mixed together, the good and the bad, the horrible and the magnificent.

What struck me most when I heard these letters being read by the children who wrote them was the simple reality that, as much as we like to console ourselves that politics is mostly a sport that has to do with who is on top, who holds the whip hand, etc., in the end, what politics is really about is having the power to achieve something for people. Doing stuff. Power for its own sake is worse than useless, because if power is not used for something, it isn't really power, now is it. These children are cutting through the debate about ideology, Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, and asking the new President of the United States to do something. Obviously, they are asking him to do something for them; some of them include the information that they pressed their parents and other adults to vote for Obama, so they are canny enough to understand the game does work a certain way. Yet, in the end, there is something that transcends the mean and petty bickering of so much of our public discourse here. These children believe, as I think we all should, that our national politics is only a means toward the end of accomplishing results that benefit real people.

For far too long, conservatives have repeated that government is inefficient, that government doesn't work, etc., etc. Except, of course, this is not true. Not only does it work, some - perhaps many - expect it to work at least as well as private industry, and to do so with the goal of helping citizens who cannot help themselves.

I'm not suggesting that Barack Obama should order the Treasury to send a blank check to the Navajo Nation (although that might be nice, you know?). I am suggesting that there is a wisdom on display here that we adults, in our endless bickering over trivialities, have forgotten. This isn't a game; this is about leadership, real leadership with real results for real people.

Muslims Call For Investigation . . . No, Wait, Anti-Semitic Americans Demand . . . Shoot, That's Not Right, Either

Oh, that's right. It's Israelis who are calling for an investigation in to whether or not Israel committed war crimes in Gaza.

Silly me. Here I thought all right-thinking people just supported everything Israel did without question.

Supporting The Troops . . . Or Not

Over the weekend, I heard that the military would not give out Purple Hearts for those whose PTSD was a direct result of combat; apparently mental injuries aren't real to these people. Now, it seems that Marines are committing suicide in record numbers. Not just any run-of-the-mill jarhead, mind, but those who are combat veterans.

Heck of a job, Bushie . . .

The End Of Days

Starting form the granted info that Feodor was over at ELAshley's blog, I thought I'd check it out. I'm providing a link because I'm pretty sure Eric would simply erase any comment I might make (what a man!), but I thought I'd make some general observations.

First, I do so love someone who claims to understand the Bible typing out the following list:

* The Rebirth of Israel --Matthew 24:32 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* The Increase of Knowledge --Daniel 12:4 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* The Birth of Nuclear Bombs --Ezekiel 14:12 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Russian Jews coming from the North Country --Jeremiah 3:27 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Jerusalem in the hand of the Jews --Zephaniah 3:16 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , Luke 21:24 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* International Television --Revelation 11:9-10 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Deception by Secular Humanism & Cults --Matthew 24:4 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Famines, Earthquakes, Aids, etc. --Matthew 24:7 [Open in Libronix (if available)]
* Marriage and Materialism --Matthew 24:37-38 [Open in Libronix (if available)]

International television was predicted in the late 1st century? Nuclear weaponry by an exiled Hebrew prophet? Not understanding that "prophecy" and "prediction" are two distinct phenomenon, the latter frowned upon by most Christians, the former the exercise of pronouncing God's judgment based in the Law, grace, and love, Eric manages to offer a fourth-grader's reading of the Bible. When taken to task on it by Feodor, his response?

My motivation is their eternal destination. My motivation is partly Ezekiel 3:18 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , and a desire to hear, 'Well done thou good and faithful servant.' I have no desire to lie to the lost and tell them their lives will be magically better, that their troubles will miraculously lift from their shoulders. Not that it can't happen, but if anyone is going to follow Christ, they have to know that it will not be an easy thing to do. Far from it. Their reward as you say, is a marriage feast... and that's stating it rather simply. No marriage ends with the reception. Likewise, what awaits them in heaven is far more than a sit down meal with their future husband and King.

You have misconstrued much of my intent here. Perhaps I'm not articulating it well enough.

How's this... "Bridge Out! 100 Yards!"

All I'm saying is, "His return is imminent. Get Ready NOW before it's too late!"

Now, I don't think Feodor missed Eric's point at all. I think he was making fun of it, or at the very least pointing out some pretty big errors in his Biblical reading-comprehension.

Personally, my favorite part is Eric's admission that all he cares about is getting a pat on the head from God for being such a good little boy. At least he is honest enough to admit that his Christian belief is all about him.

New Levels Of Crazy

Sometime when I read about right-wing Christians doing stuff, I think, "These folks just can't top themselves." Then, I read this, and I realize I should never underestimate the ability of these people to commit idolatry in their efforts to put politics before God.

It seems that Rob Schenck of Faith and Action and Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition took it upon themselves last week to bless the Capitol passageway through which Barack Obama will make his way to be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. Turned back by Capitol police, they happened upon Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who shepherded them to the place. There, as you can see, amidst the praying for the president-to-be and his family, Schenck anoints the door posts with holy oil from the Holy Land, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

What's up with this? In the video, Schenck declares that he is consecrating the passageway "as they did the furnishings of the Tabernacle and the Temple to the use of God and to His will and to His Word."

So . . . the Oval Office is now the Holy of Holies, to be entered only one day a year, where Pres. Obama will whisper the secret and Holy name of God three times amidst a cloud of incense?

These people are whacked out it is unbelievable.

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!

If you're an old fart like me, you might remember the Iran-Contra scandal back in the late-1980's. A few years before it broke, Congress discovered a spine and managed to make illegal sending funds to the Contras in Nicaragua. Oliver North and others took a brief from Pres. Reagan to continue support for these drug running terrorists and solicited money from various rich Americans, ultimately getting a windfall from a covert arms shipment to Iran, made at a time we were also providing classified intelligence to Iraq (nothing like playing both ends against the middle in a fruitless war of attrition, I always say, especially when you really don't have a dog in the fight). One of the players in this sleazy little D-grade political thriller was Elliot Abrams, a State Department official ultimately convicted of lying to Congress (back when that was a prosecutable offense). At one point during his rather contentious hearing before the special House-Senate committee empaneled to investigate this tangled mess, he insisted the entire thing was a farce, an effort to criminalize what was nothing more than policy disagreements. This particular framing was picked up by many on the right, and continues to this day. Every time some conservative gets harassed by the media and others that they might just have done something not quite legal in the course of their official duties, it's another example of mean, stupid liberals wanting to make doing conservative stuff illegal. Why do we do it? because we're mean and stupid and liberal, that's why!

Fast forward a couple decades, and we have an entire Administration of Elliot Abrams. Shoot, we have Abrams himself, rehabilitated by George W. Bush, no less. The entire crew is set to ride off in to the sunset, unmourned by an American public exhausted by their desire to have this debacle of Executive mismanagement over and done with. Yet, there are many loose ends, as they say, that need tying up, many questions for which the answers aren't exactly comforting, many deeds that need a closer examination. Pres.-elect Obama has done the Bush Administration a favor and signaled his refusal to investigate with an aim toward prosecuting any alleged criminal conduct on the part of members of the Bush Administration. Many on the left are outraged; there are just some things - like, say, torture, indefinite detention, domestic spying for starters - that need to be brought to the light of day, and those responsible held accountable.

I am, in all honesty, of two minds about this. On the one hand, my fondest dream has been to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and many lesser lights of this already-dim group prosecuted in various venues, not least The Hague (having a former President and Vice President extradited to The Netherlands to appear before a war crimes tribunal would most definitely be a victory for real justice). If any group deserved such attention, it is this bunch who have served us so poorly, destroyed so much of our national confidence in the ability of government to actually achieve things of worth, to even do public Administration with a minimal amount of competence.

On the other hand, while I think making such a signal so early and so public has certainly confused a vocal part of Obama's constituency, it might also be part of a deeper game on Obama's part. It is important to remember a couple things. First, many of those calling for investigation with an aim toward eventual prosecution want the kind of open-ended investigation Lawrence Walsh gave us during Iran-Contra. It took years, with the final indictments handed down as Bush 41's term came to a close - Cap Weinberger's indictment in particular was a memorable one - with Presidential pardons hard on their heels. While that was pretty shameless, it should not have been surprising. Such investigations are necessarily lengthy, dealing with millions of pages of documents, memoranda, emails, classified information, and the interview of principles and secondary figures multiple times, sometimes numbering in the hundreds (why else would Oliver North's secretary have to be hauled before a Congressional committee). Obama has to put in place a minimally-functioning Administration on January 20th at noon, and part of that process is getting everyone to play nice, handing over documents, policy statements, email directives and all the rest beforehand. If some mid-level political appointee is afraid there might be something potentially prosecutable in this, that, or the other communique, he or she might just not play along.

At the same time, once all this paperwork and screenwork is gathered together and examined, isn't it just possible - and I say this with more hope than confidence it is true - that someone higher up the food chain might just shout in good Capt. Renault-like tones, "I'm shocked, shocked to discover illegality going on here!" Rather than pursue this or that lead, isn't it at least possible that as specific acts come to light, they will be prosecuted?

Even if this isn't so, we should never forget that the Republicans, elephants that they are, have long memories. Bill Clinton was impeached not only because the Republicans were never satisfied he had won the Presidency outright; he was impeached because, 20 years before, a Democratic Congress had its sights set on Richard Nixon. It was payback. Now, it is true enough, as the example of the Republican treatment of the Clinton Administration demonstrates, that such nasty antics not only distract an Administration from actually doing work. It is also true that, a good prosecutor working long enough and hard enough will manage to find someone somewhere violating the law. When Bush took over, the constant crowing about alleged Bush crimes sounded kind of tinny even to me, a repeat from the left what happened during the eight years of the Clinton Administration. To turn around and start investigating every aspect of the Bush years would take time, resources, and emotional and political energy needed for doing other things, not the least of which is simply executing the laws of the land. Should Republican, by some miracle, win the White House again in the near future, if Obama wasted a whole lot of time and energy investigating and prosecuting every little piece of dirt from the Bush Administration, please know that a new Republican Administration would be dedicated to one purpose and one purpose alone - doing the same to previous Democratic Administrations, only with gusto, flair, and more nasty thoroughness than any Democrat could dream possible. At some point, I think, we have to be realistic enough to accept the fact that, even though there is probably enough evidence in the public record to impanel a dozen grand juries, the political cost might just be too high. It's an ugly reality, to be sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reality nonetheless.

Sometimes, I think we have to settle for a kind of minimalist understanding that, yeah, the entire eight years was one long criminal enterprise with a combination of corruption, stupidity, ignorance, and blatant flaunting of the law that was breathtaking in its exuberance. At the same time, it's over, they're gone and this bunch, at least, won't be around to bother us anymore, so let's get some stuff done, and done right. While we're doing that, should we stumble across some evidence - actual evidence (which shouldn't be too hard to find) - that a crime might just have been committed by the Bush Administration ("Shocked, I tell you!"), well then, that's what we have a Justice Department for.

One finale note. I know that Democracy Lover, for one, and others often write about "principles". I am not dedicated to principles in politics, other than actually achieving stuff. Part of what made the Bush years so awful was we had a group of people in charge, in both the Executive and in Congress, who were dedicated to certain "principles" - conservative ideology, to be precise - and simply ignored public disdain and preference as well as the occasional law to achieve ends rooted in these principles. Whether it was the unitary executive or Tom DeLay threatening to subpoena a brain-dead coma patient to "testify" before Congress during the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco, that is what a dedication to principle leads to, in the end. Principles are for people who see nothing wrong with not actually achieving anything other than a moral victory. Politics isn't about moral victories, but real victories.

Music For Your Monday

I can't keep it straight, so I'll just give it a new title.

Arnold Schoenberg managed to set the musical world on its ear, in the same way and at the same time a bunch of painters were doing the same thing in the visual arts. Generally called "modernism", it was nothing more than innovation, taking the next logical step. Sometimes his music is considered "atonal", which it really wasn't. There just wasn't the same kind of harmonic order that earlier music had. His "12-tone" ideas are interesting, and would be picked up by jazz musicians later in the century. Here's an excerpt from his Piano Concerto 42, with Mitsuko Uchida on piano:



Another excerpt, from his Chamber Symphony, op. 9, from 1984, with Erich Leinsdorf conducting.



I think Glenn Gould is the perfect interpreter of Schoenberg, if for no other reason than he goes well with being a coke-head. Here he is with Yehudi Menuhin on violin, playing Fantasie, op. 47.

Eight Days

Not that I'm counting.

Will America survive?

Just so any right-wing Republicans who stop by may wonder, no, I do not think Obama is the salvation of the nation. Right now, I find him a bit too honorable toward the Republicans in Congress, who are owed nothing for their mismanagement of our national affairs. I think he is too honorable toward the Democratic leadership, for that matter, who are looking to earn points by standing up to a popular President-to-be from their own party so no one can accuse them of partisanship. I think he is aiming low with his stimulus plan - more money in a wider variety of ways (shoot, FDR even funded plays, poems, paintings, and novels) would be better - but since that's Paul Krugman's position and all he has is a Nobel in Economics, what do either of us know? My point is not that Obama is our savior (or, perhaps, Savior?). Rather, my point is that Bush is so bad he could still make things worse in eight days. He has the magic touch, after all.

Stimulus And Response

Being unqualified to speak on details of Pres-elect Obama's economic stimulus plan before the new Congress - I know what I read in the paper, and I also know that when we've reached numbers like "$700 billion" we have reached a level no one really can comprehend - I am interested in a report on "negotiations" between the Obama camp and Congress. When I first read about this, I thought, what leverage does Congress have in all this?

Then, it occurred to me. Obviously, Democrats have to cave in to every whim and fancy of the most unpopular Republican President in our history, because otherwise people might say bad things about how partisan they are. They win points, however, by standing up to an incredibly popular soon-to-be incumbent Democratic President, who is offering the American people an opportunity to lessen the damage and pain from the train-wreck of the Bush years.

Rather than sit and negotiate - and try to get Republicans on board - Obama should simply have drawn up a bill, had it introduced to Congress, let them vote on it up and down, and then if it failed, held a little presser saying the combination of Republican intransigence and Democratic ineptitude has led to the demise of a bill meant to help the American people. The outcry from the people might have been enough to get another, similar, bill passed without much fanfare. Obama is being far too deferential to the stupid Democrats in Congress and the obstreperous Republicans by holding "negotiations." Screw the negotiations. Play nice on stuff that doesn't matter all that much. Put and keep the Republicans in their place, the minority.

The politics of this thing is really maddening.

Double Standard?

NB: I saw this yesterday, and was going to write something about it, but was still recovering from a wonderful gastro-intestinal bug that hit me like a Peterbilt Friday morning shortly after I got home from work. I was still physically weak from the onslaught, but am feeling much better.

Poor Sarah Palin. She casts herself as a victim of horrid, evil, liberal journalists who used a double-standard in approaching her own family and that of either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Obviously, if she had been a liberal Democrat no one would have thought to examine her private life.

Over at Fire Dog Lake, Julia takes issue with Gov. Palin's insistence that the scrutiny she faced on this front was the result of media bias. While she makes a persuasive case, I think Julia misses a larger point.

While it is true, as Julia notes, that both the media and the Republican standard-bearers managed to include criticisms of President-elect Obama's wife in their campaign rhetoric, I think everyone can agree there was a larger-than-normal interest in the private life of Gov. Palin. Part of that was due, I think, to the simple fact that she was unknown on the national stage. Sen. McCain had been around, and the story of his marriages, etc., had been told and settled for quite some time. Everyone knew Sen. Biden had suffered a tragic loss, and dealt with it bravely, early on in his life and political career. While new as well, there seemed little in Obama's current life to attract attention. There was some scrutiny by some right-wingers over his birth certificate, whether he was really born in Hawaii or not, and the role his Muslim stepfather may or may not have played in his life at one time, but since most of this was the result of political senescence on the part of the right, it resulted more in derision than anything else.

For my part, I believe the scrutiny Gov. Palin's family life received was rooted less in sexism and political bias than it was in the kind of schadenfreude many feel in exposing moral hypocrisy. Part of the wing of the Republican Party that continues to insist that personal private character traits are, or should be, considered as contiguous with our public commitments and lives, she seemed to invite those who might wish to get to know her to take a look at her family. She trotted out her baby son, Trig, as evidence of her strong family values (a late-life baby with Downs' Syndrome whose birth showed their commitment to pro-life values, so goes the argument). I was personally disgusted with all the attention paid to the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol, yet since Gov. Palin was part of the Republican Party that crows about the evils of teen sexuality, it could at least be argued that here, if nowhere else, there was a lapse in the continuity between her espoused beliefs and her actual practice.

I do not believe Gov. Palin received critical press, however, because of her family life. I think it might have been more intrusive if for no other reason than there seems to be an audience for these kind of private portraits. By adding in her own adherence to a certain set of political principles that see no difference between how one conducts one's personal life and the conduct of public business, however, I think the whole issue of "double standard" dissolves. She was held, not to a double standard, but to her own.

And found wanting.

Death And Dying

This past fall I've had to face a lot of death. My dear friend Steve Creech is gone. My Aunt, Joan Konicki, passed away just a few weeks ago. After a battle with lung cancer, Kathy Zoeller died just a few short weeks ago. Just yesterday, we received word that Ruby Jones, a woman who lived catty-corner from us and was a member of the first church to which Lisa was appointed, died recently after a stroke, at the age of 91. Her passing marked the end of an era of sorts in the little town of Jarratt, VA, and there are few who remain from that once wonderful, confounding congregation with which we shared five years of our lives, including the birth of our first child.

I have faced death in different ways in my life, from my childhood loss of my paternal grandfather - my first real encounter with death - to the suicide of my best childhood friend to the sudden, inexplicable loss of my wife's father a little over seven years ago. Now, however, I am entering the age where it will be, if not a constant companion, at least always a shadow in the background, waiting perhaps around if not the next corner, then down the street a ways. Dealing with death, with the reality of the final answer to all of life's mysteries, is never easy. Knowing it is real, knowing it sits there for all of us, yet takes us piece by piece in the deaths of those we know and love before it comes for us is hard. Of course, we are lucky because this is a nation- and culture-specific issue. Were we to live in, say, Zimbabwe (according to an article in today's Washington Post), the issue of death and dying would be far different. Were we living in Congo, the site of a war that has already brought much death and destruction to central Africa with no end in sight, we would face a whole different set of questions, issues, challenges, griefs, etc.

None of this is to say our challenges are not real, or of less urgency than others. Only to say they are different.

In any event, I was brought to mind of these issues and questions, fears and anger, in reading this article in today's Washington Post. Written by a Minnesota-based internist, Chris Bowron, the article explores one physician's frustration as he deals with issues surrounding what are now called "end of life" issues. As he points out, with interesting new medicines and technologies created to prolong life, very often doctors, nurses, and families face increasingly difficult choices as to how best to deal with and care for those who are declining toward death.

I have to admit I was first a bit off-put by the initial presentation, as well as the way Bowron framed the fundamental question - how do we, as individuals, as families, as health-care providers, as a society at large, to come to grips with burgeoning life-extending technologies, yet still coping with the fundamental reality that death comes to us all? Reading a doctor's musings on the reality that death is not the enemy, but perhaps dying, or even the prevention of death (in some though certainly not all cases), was eye-opening. Of course, for his question, I believe there is no final answer. There is no "one way" that fits all situations, and doctors and nurses, families and loved-ones all face difficult choices - despite his assertion at the end that this "choice" is largely illusory - for which we have little guidance. Even the assertion of preference - a Do Not Resuscitate Order in one case; an order to do everything possible in another, similar set of circumstances - can be meaningless in the face of loved-ones, or health-care providers in the heat of the moment (Dr. Bowron offers an example of a patient brought to his hospital from a nursing home when there existed an order that no such measures be taken; the nursing home administration probably just followed their Policies and Procedures without reference to individual preference in this case).

In The True and Only Heaven, the late historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch offers the view of the differences between two societies - early-Victorian Britain and contemporary America - as members of each faced death. He uses the death scene of Little Nell as a template; here is a little girl, dying (as many young people did) surrounded by family and loved-ones (a not-uncommon occurrence). He makes the point that this was a ritual played out innumerable times. When a member of the family was dying, the whole family was paraded past, to see and offer one last goodbye, to be with so the final moment is not one spent alone.

We, on the other hand, keep a certain distance. Dying is done less and less at home (although that is changing) and more frequently at hospitals and nursing homes. Even if family is present, they are kept at a distance through the intrusive technologies and the insistence of doctors and nurses whose intervention is not always wanted or even needed. We attempt to shield our children from the reality of death, believing it unnecessary to expose them to this final state because "they won't understand it".

Yet, none of us understand it. Not really. Yet, is understanding really necessary? Whether we understand it or not, or even accept its inevitability or not, death awaits us all at some point. Dying can be long and drawn out, with or without technological helps. Or it can come in an instant, unexpected, stealing others from us in a blink of an eye. Whether we understand it or not, it is there. How we deal with it, how we face it as families, as health-care providers, as supportive loved-ones and friends, comes down, I think, in the end, to our ability to stare the abyss in the face, allow it to stare back at us, and not fall in to it ourselves.