|
|
Sunday, August 31, 2003
An Israeli responds
A guest post by Alifa Saadya
I am an Israeli, a freethinking but observant Jew with an interest in religious studies.I find the article, "The Virtue of Hate," by Meir Soloveitchik troubling [I cited the article here - DS]. First: the issue of forgiveness raised by the story from Elie Wiesel's The Sunflower.
What does forgiveness consist of? And what is its timing?
I am of the opinion, based on harsh personal experience, that sometimes "forgiveness" consists of allowing a person to be who and what he is. I believe firmly in what some will call "divine justice" or perhaps the "law of karma." Our actions have consequences, and we will ultimately face those consequences. I do not see this as some mechanistic reward-and-punishment issue. Nevertheless, in order to stay sane and to relinquish drifting into hatred, I have to believe, that for example, the Arab who murdered my friend will face some sort of judgment. When it comes to crimes, God has called on all humankind (not just Jews) to institute courts of law, but Judaism always recognized that beyond the courts of this world there is also a heavenly court. In my faith is that ultimate court, I do not have to waste my energy hating evildoers here on earth. I only have to defend myself when necessary, and hope to bring them to earthly justice when possible.
I really think it is unfair and prejudicial to expect anyone who has suffered much at the hands of other human beings to suddenly open up and say the magic words "I forgive you." Too many people think that "forgiveness" also means the end of the consequences of someone's actions. I do not. My Catholic friends point out to me that recognizing that a sin or crime has been committed, remorse, and some mechanism of asking for forgiveness is but the first step. There is still the punishment due for the act committed, and one of the reasons the priests used to assign prayers of penance or good deeds to be done or other actions after giving absolution is that these acts done out of true repentance may mitigate the degree of God's just punishment. The point is: only God can determine the correct "punishment" and in leaving that up to God, we are "forgiving" the evildoer, and refusing to feed the emotional overload that harmful acts bring about.
Jews believe that we as human beings are responsible for our actions; we have to have the courage to say, "I sinned," and we have to do what we can to make up for our faults. If I stole a book from the library, I must return it and pay the fine; but when you are speaking of someone who is dying and has committed heinous crimes, what can anyone do but leave that person to God? Of what use to the criminal would be the forgiveness of an anonymous Jew, who is not even the one he specifically harmed? Let the criminal find his own forgiveness in some other world of being.
Walking out, I think, was the only reasonable action possible.
Second:
The story of Samson in the article is here used as an example of vengefulness. Well! Samson is hardly a character Jews would wish to emulate. The times of the book of Judges were the "wild, wild East" and you might say that Samson's "good deed" lay merely in the fact that he destroyed idols --- idol worship being in Jewish eyes the worst sin.
I get really upset when "Old Testament" accounts of vengeance are brought up --- often this is merely an attempt to defame Jews of today.
Vengeance, just incidentally, is specifically forbidden in Leviticus 19:17. Look it up. It's the verse that ends with "you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." Jews teach that when God "signs" a commandment with "I am the Lord" it means it's especially important. And that old "eye for an eye" thing is about making just compensation
for damages: the Jewish world by the time of Jesus had already figured out that you can't create physical damage on the criminal equal to what harm he caused in the first place.
I do not see hate as any kind of "virtue," and what's worse, I think that Soloveitchik feeds into the misconceptions that antisemites and ignorant people are continually ascribing to Judaism. The wicked need to be brought to justice if that is possible; but there is no virtue in hatred.
Soloveitchik writes: There is, in fact, no minimizing the difference between Judaism and Christianity on whether hate can be virtuous. Indeed, Christianity's founder acknowledged his break with Jewish tradition on this matter from the very outset: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I
say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. . . . Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
God, Jesus argues, loves the wicked, and so must we. In disagreeing, Judaism does not deny the importance of imitating God; Jews hate the wicked because they believe that God despises the wicked as well. There is an instructive story in the Talmud about this very subject. I 'm sorry that I have no way to look up the source right now. The famous Rabbi Meir was accosted by some thugs, and was ready to curse them, but his wife, Bruria reminded him that we are to hate the sin, but not the sinner. And in addition, many Christians on reading that quote from the New Testament assume that the phrase "hate your enemy" is to be found in the Old Testament. In fact, it is not there, and scholars are uncertain if it was merely a saying (perhaps common in one of the political movements with which Jesus was familiar) or a text.
In fact, in my acquaintance with many committed Christians, I have discovered that they wrestle continually with the implications of forgiveness, the necessity of forgiving, and the mechanics of doing so. Corrie ten Boom, who with her family rescued many Jews during the Holocaust, recounted how difficult it was for her to forgive a German nurse whom she felt had contributed to the death of her beloved and deeply spiritual sister. Eventually, Corrie found the path to forgiving the nurse only after the woman converted to Christianity. No one who knows the deep religious conviction that Corrie had, could doubt her account of the struggle she had to reach the point of forgiving.
I find Soloveitchik's article offensive and misleading, and it's an embarrassment to me as a Jew to read it.
by Donald Sensing, 8/31/2003 07:41:00 AM. Permalink
|
 
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Loving one's enemies
True stories
I previously said I would post a response about forgiveness is response to Joe Katzman's comments that were in turn respondent to an article in First Things by Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik, pursuing his Ph.D. at Harvard.
Joe's post is here, the link to the article is here. It's called, "The Virtue of Hate." An illustration: Among Orthodox Jews, there is an oft–used Hebrew phrase whose equivalent I have not found among Christians. The phrase is yemach shemo, which means, may his name be erased. It is used whenever a great enemy of the Jewish nation, of the past or present, is mentioned. For instance, one might very well say casually, in the course of conversation, “Thank God, my grandparents left Germany before Hitler, yemach shemo, came to power.” This is a compellingly thoughtful article, and the rabbi author does recognize and describe very well the difference between Judaism and Christianity in their approaches to forgiveness.
Soloveichik begins with this story. In his classic Holocaust text, The Sunflower, Simon Wiesenthal recounts the following experience. As a concentration camp prisoner, the monotony of his work detail is suddenly broken when he is brought to the bedside of a dying Nazi. The German delineates the gruesome details of his career, describing how he participated in the murder and torture of hundreds of Jews. Exhibiting, or perhaps feigning, regret and remorse, he explains that he sought a Jew—any Jew—to whom to confess, and from whom to beseech forgiveness. Wiesenthal silently contemplates the wretched creature lying before him, and then, unable to comply but unable to condemn, walks out of the room. Tortured by his experience, wondering whether he did the right thing, Wiesenthal submitted this story as the subject of a symposium, including respondents of every religious stripe. An examination of the respective replies of Christians and Jews reveals a remarkable contrast. “When the first edition of The Sunflower was published,” writes Dennis Prager, “I was intrigued by the fact that all the Jewish respondents thought Simon Wiesenthal was right in not forgiving the repentant Nazi mass murderer, and that the Christians thought he was wrong.” In contrast, I offer for your consideration the remarkable story of Nazi Oberst Herbert Kappler and Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty of the Vatican's diplomatic staff.
Like Wiesenthal's account, this is a true story.
In Rome in World War II, Nazi Gestapo Colonel Herbert Kappler was responsible for rounding up escaped Allied prisoners and for destroying the Italian partisans. It was also his job to round up Jews and send them to Germany for slave labor. Later, the Jews were killed in concentration camps after they became too weak to work. The Wisenthal Center describes him thus: Kappler was responsible for deporting approximately 10,000 Italian Jews. He also murdered 335 Italians in retaliation for a partisan bomb which had killed 33 Germans in 1944. Kappler had been hand-picked for this job by none other than Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler because of Kappler had brutally, successfully suppressed the Belgian underground. In Rome, Kappler sent the Gestapo into the streets to enforce his will; any who resisted were often gunned down on the spot. Kappler himself put a bullet through the head of a Catholic priest who had been captured carrying messages for the partisans.
The greatest obstacle to Kappler's work was an underground railroad, managed out of Rome, which was concealing more than 4,000 allied escapees (mostly downed allied airmen) and Jews. They were hidden in the city, the countryside or infiltrated north to Switzerland. While Kappler was very successful in rounding up Italian Jews outside Rome, he was able to capture only 1,007 of the 9,700 Roman Jews. The rest were exfiltrated or hidden by a Roman underground.
The key figure in this underground railroad was an Irish priest of the Vatican's diplomatic service, Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty. Colonel Kappler greatly hated Father O'Flaherty. O'Flaherty coordinated the humanitarian effort by arranging financing and hideouts. He often physically escorted his charges part of the way on their journey. Kappler could not arrest O'Flaherty because O'Flaherty was a citizen of Vatican City, not Rome. And Vatican City was off limits by order of Hitler himself.
One day, however, Kappler determined that O'Flaherty was too dangerous merely to be arrested. Kappler determined to seize him and make him disappear. O'Flaherty was warned of the plot by none other than the German ambassador to Italy, enabling O'Flaherty barely to escape.
Kappler soon afterward sent a pair of disguised assassins into a Roman church to kill O'Flaherty as he prayed, but O'Flaherty eluded them. Kappler then posted snipers at various places around the Vatican with orders to shoot O'Flaherty immediately upon his departure, even by a single foot, outside the limits of the Vatican.
This could not stop O'Flaherty. He evaded the eyes of the Germans and made his way out of Vatican City to continue his work, disguised as a laborer or perhaps a shopkeeper. When Kappler captured another priest, O'Flaherty dressed in the uniform of a German officer and boldly walked into the prison to give his friend confession before he was executed. Kappler's frustration and fury grew and he intensified his efforts to capture O'Flaherty and destroy the partisans and their network.
The night came when O'Flaherty's luck ran out. One evening as he lay in bed, Kappler's aide, dressed in priestly robes, entered his room and placed a pistol to his temple. He commanded O'Flaherty to come with him. He took O'Flaherty to the Coliseum, dark and foreboding. A figure loomed ahead. In a moment O'Flaherty could see it was Col. Kappler.
Kappler spoke first. "I know about you," he said. "People have told me you can't pass a beggar without giving him money, that you will help anyone, Americans, British, Jews, Arabs, all the same. They say you believe in brotherly love."
O'Flaherty regarded the Nazi with suspicion and disdain. "It's why I became a priest," he replied. "What do you want?"
"The American Army is closing on Rome now," replied Kappler. "It won't take them long to get here. As you know, my wife and family are here. There is no German transport to take them back home. If the partisans capture them, they will kill them. I want you to get them to safety. You know how!"
O'Flaherty was stunned. His rage welled up inside him and he shouted, "No! It is too much to ask! You have sent thousands of families to their deaths, but now you want me to save yours! No! It is the reward of your evil! I will not do it!" O'Flaherty turned and walked away.
Kappler shouted after him, "It's all a lie! Your God, love, mercy-all lies! You're no different from anyone else!"
The Allies later captured Col. Kappler. The interrogator shocked Kappler by asking him, "Colonel, we know you have set up infiltration routes in and out of Rome. Who got your family to Switzerland? Tell us and it will go easier for you at your trial." Stunned, Kappler stammered that he did not know who got his family out.
After the war, Monsignor O'Flaherty was honored by the Allied governments. He was awarded the U.S. Medal of Freedom and was made a Knight Commander of the British Empire. Colonel Kappler was sentenced as a war criminal to life in prison. He served his time in Gaeta prison, between Rome and Naples.
In all the years he was imprisoned, Kappler had only one visitor. Every month, year after year, Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty visited Herbert Kappler in his cell. In 1959, after almost 14 years of visiting, O'Flaherty baptized Kappler into the church.
_________________________________
The commandment of Christ to love one's enemies and pray for them is not an order to feel affection for them in one's heart. It is a command to treat them in a way that is intended to lead them into righteousness before God. This is not a matter of moonlit nights and violin music. It is almost always unpleasant to do, and difficult.
Not only Christians can forgive, and not all Christians do. But I think I am on pretty safe ground saying that only Christianity holds that forgiveness is a special obligation of its adherents.
by Donald Sensing, 8/30/2003 10:20:00 AM. Permalink
|
Heat wave may be worst natural disaster in French history
It has killed more than 11,000 people in the first two weeks of August. That's a conservative estimate.
by Donald Sensing, 8/30/2003 09:27:00 AM. Permalink
|
This girl and her mom really need to get a life
"A Westmoreland County [Pa.] cheerleader is taking her school to court, claiming a demotion has irreparably harmed her." link
by Donald Sensing, 8/30/2003 09:24:00 AM. Permalink
|
Friday, August 29, 2003
The Najaf bombing
Grim's Hall has some interesting observations, including the idea that the Shia Iranians were behind the bomb that killed Shiite cleric Baqir al-Hakim. Al-Hakim was one of the most important Shi'ites in Iraq, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, and brother to one of the members of the US-backed Governing Council, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim.
. . . another possibility exists also: that it is the work of forces from Iran, trying to destroy a powerful Shi'ite organization that has been increasingly willing to work with the United States. Possibly, but Grim also says it is less likely the work of Iran than Baathists.
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 10:07:00 PM. Permalink
|
California public schools promoting Islam, group charges
The left-of-center Americans United for Separation of Church and State has written the superintendent of the Byron Union School District, somewhere in California, informing him that a school's curriculum "to teach students 'about' religion, crossed the legal line and must be discontinued." Americans United for Separation of Church and State has contacted school officials in California, raising legal questions about a seventh-grade class in which students were asked to adopt Muslim names, dress in Islamic clothing and memorize Islamic prayers. Americans United's letter said that while "teaching students about the world's religions, including Islam, is a laudable goal," the plan to require students actually to carry out Muslim acts of worship cross the line.
Which of course it does. Just imagine that the school was instead requiring students to act out Christian baptism or receive the Eucharist. (hat tip: LeanLeft)
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 09:57:00 PM. Permalink
|
Affirmative action for dolls
My wife is the director of a preschool and pre-Kindergarten run by a local United Methodist Church (not mine). Every year her school is inspected by the state's regulatory and licensing agencies. If the school does not pass the inspections, it can be closed by the state. There are a lot of different inspections at the school year's beginning.
Please note that this is a private pre-school.
Today she went shopping in preparation for an inspection coming up this week. It was for a doll. She told me that the state licensing agency requires that her school have three dolls of at least two different races.
Of course the school may have more than three dolls, but it may not violate the "two races per three dolls" ratio.
Do you think that mandating affirmative action for dolls is a permissible power of government? The state can close the school for not having an approved racial mix of dolls! Leave a comment.
Update: I am reminded of Steven Den Beste's observation that the job of bureaucrats is to regulate, and left to themselves they will try to regulate everything.
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 08:04:00 PM. Permalink
|
This is the key thing
Josh Claybourn writes about Christian duty and taxes, a topic I have been outlining for a post myself.
It seems the governor of Alabama has been seeking to raise taxes based on an understanding of Christian ethics. His quest is being advised by Univ. of Alabama law Professor Susan Hamill, who spent some time in Tennessee recently claiming a connection bewteen her idea of a just tax structure and biblical teaching.
Says Josh, Some Christians look to Acts 4:32-37 as evidence that the Bible endorses socialism, or a system like it. But there is a strong difference between voluntarily giving your plurality to those in need, as they did in Acts, and government mandated coercion. And that is a key point. (Hamill published a paper in the Alabama Law Review with an explanation of her legal theology of taxation.)
Question: The governor of the state explicitly claims that higher taxes is a "Christian duty" of Alabama's citizens. Why does not some Alabaman challenge the tax hike on the First Amendment's establishment clause?
After all, if the Chief Justice of the state's Supreme Court can't display the Ten Commandments, how can the state's governor be allowed to shape tax policy explicitly upon Christianity?
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 07:28:00 PM. Permalink
|
Why the Left loves immigrants
. . . whether legal or illegal. Rich Lowry explains succintly that once upon a time, halting illegal immigration would have been a principal cause of American liberals. Case in point: the late Barbara Jordan, "one of the great liberal voices of the past three decades, [who] called for cutting back on immigration in the 1990s."
Immigration, whether legal or illegal, depresses jobs and wages for lower-income citizens. Raising low wages for working Americans used to be a foremost concern of liberals, but, On the left today, multiculturalism trumps all, and instead of higher wages, liberals prefer to give low-income Americans political correctness. But what motivates the Right in permitting uncontrolled immigration? Do they want the cheap labor, even when it runs the risk of politically alienating lower-income American voters? I must confess I just don't get it.
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 05:47:00 PM. Permalink
|
Where I stand
My two "thought experiment" posts yesterday about the Ten Commandments and the statue of Athena in Nashville's Parthenon building garnered a lot of commentary, most of it good, and no few links, for which I am always grateful. I was not taking a personal position in the posts so much as thinking about some new angles in the debates about religion and state.
For the record, here are my positions on both:
The Commandments have been removed and should have been removed.
The statue of Athena should stay (there is no legal action about it at all). But I also think that if someone were to mount a legal challenge against it, the city of Nashville would not be able successfully to defend it.
A good commentary on the Commandments was released this morning by Tom Teepen, writing for Cox newspapers: . . . the claim has been repeatedly made that the Ten Commandments are (choose one) the source, foundation, bedrock, cornerstone of American law and therefore deserve standing in the public, and specifically the political, arena.
This assertion would be a strong point in favor of their government-sanctioned promotion, with history trumping church-state separation, except for the awkward fact that it isn't true.
American law overwhelmingly derives, as you would imagine, from English common law and especially from Sir William Blackstone's magisterial "Commentaries On the Law of England," a legal best-seller in the crucial period when the American Revolution was gestating.
And all that in turn owes more than a little to Roman law, particularly to its seminal Twelve Tables that codified customary law, and to the Germanic Code that followed it. Somewhere way back there, the Ten Commandments played into the stream of thought that became western jurisprudence, but then so did Hammurabi's Code from Babylonia and the civil law of ancient Greek city-states. Which is a fuller version of what I wrote here:I personally think that the Ten Commandments are very poor examples of religious legal precedent for America. The idea that there is some reasonably direct link from the Decalogue to American jurisprudence is a huge stretch, IMO. Fact is that even Church law owes more to Roman law than to the Hebraic tradition.
The religious right's emotional attachment to displays of the Ten Commandments really sort of baffles me, anyway. We Christians consider ourselves inheritors of the New Covenant prophesied by the major Jewish prophet Jeremiah, and fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The section of Jeremiah in which he prophesies the New Covenant is Jer. 31:23-40. Verse 33 seems particularly relevant: "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. Of what value to American jurisprudence or Christian faithfulness is displaying a stone monument of the Ten Commandments? The law of the Lord is supposed to be written on our hearts! And what is the Law of the New Covenant? According to the apostle Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome: The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13: 9-10). If Alabama or any other state wishes to acknowledge divine law as a foundation for its own code and society, I can't think of any better example. But I suppose it not judgmental enough for some people.
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 01:54:00 PM. Permalink
|
Gunman on loose in south Nashville, shots fired
A gunman entered a business called Electric Picture Company on Logan Street in Nashville a short time ago. Shots were fired. The SWAT team is on the scene and reported to be inside the building. Developing . . . .
Update: Everyone is out of the building except for the gunman and one employee. Police spokesman Don Aaron said that they have reason to believe the gunman was looking for a woman with whom he had had a relationship.
Update 2: Aaron just said that one employee of the company is dead. The SWAT team has not apprehended the gunman yet.
Update 3: Just announced that the gunman, Thomas Edgar Harrison, shot himself to death and was found by the SWAT team.
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 12:50:00 PM. Permalink
|
My computer is croaking this morning
So I'll be back after I get it fixed.
Update: Seems to have been the CPU cooling fan gone bad. Warranty replacement and I'm back in business.
by Donald Sensing, 8/29/2003 08:54:00 AM. Permalink
|
Thursday, August 28, 2003
State-sponsored paganism
Is it time for equal protection to have some real bite?
I wrote that Alabama Judge Roy Moore’s reasoning about displaying the Ten Commandments is grievously flawed. Even so, his primary question does strike to the heart of the matter: “Can the state acknowledge God?”
There is a long-standing history of judicial rulings that the answer is, “No.” In the 1960s, federal courts ruled that no public school may sponsor prayer. Just a couple of years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that one-minute “open mike” times in a Texas district just before high-school football games - when students, chosen by students, could say whatever they wanted - was unconstitutional not because students were praying during the minute, but because one might pray.
Not only that, but the open-mike time was challenged by a plaintiff before it had even been done the first time. The offense claimed, that a student might pray, was in fact wholly imaginary. No student had prayed because no student had even spoken yet.
So when Judge Moore’s supporters protest that the judicial history of rulings and public policy relevant to religion-state matters is slanted against Christians, I am unable to disagree. Consider two examples:
In elementary school in Fairfax County, Va., my sons were taught in class to make construction-paper representations of Jewish menorahs in December, which were then stapled to class and school bulletin boards. But no student or teacher was permitted to post even a picture of Santa Claus or a Christmas tree because those things were “religious” (read, Christian?).
A public school teacher told me this week that she is required to stop instruction in her class three times per day so the single Muslim student in her class may leave the room to recite his prayers in another part of the school. She is not permitted to continue teaching while he was gone because “it would be discriminatory.”
Equal protection under the law? I think not. If the people are to be protected from expressions of Christian religion, then they must also be protected from expressions of non-Christian religion.
So this statue must be torn down and removed from a public park owned and operated by the city government of Nashville, Tenn.:
This is a statue of the goddess Athena of ancient Greek religion. It stands inside a full-scale replica of the ancient Temple of Athena, The Parthenon, in Nashville’s Centennial Park. The statue of Athena is 41 feet, 10 inches tall, weighs 12 tons and was built inside the Parthenon building from 1982 to 1990. The Parthenon itself was built in 1920.
Athena was one of the pantheon of Greek pagan gods and goddesses of ancient times, the patroness of the city of Athens. This statue is overtly religious. Athena had no identity in ancient Greek religion except as a divine being.
An argument that the Parthenon and the statue are principally of historical value, not religious, fails for two reasons.
First, because in years past attempts by Christian groups to have the Ten Commandments displayed in court houses as historical references have been rejected by the courts and disallowed.
Second, the city of Nashville claims no historical connection with ancient Greek religion. The city does not claim that Athena specifically or pagan practice generally figure into Nashville’s jurisprudence, development or history.
So, questions for you, gentle readers:
Do you agree that if the Alabama Supreme Court may not display the Jewish and Christian Ten Commandments in its lobby because it would constitute state sponsorship of religion?
If so, do you also agree that the construction of a replica of a pagan temple on government land, using public money, in which sits a 12-ton, gilded statue of a pagan goddess, contracted for and maintained by the Nashville government, is equally unacceptable? If not, why not, and on what legal basis would you disallow the former and not the latter?
In your heart of hearts - be honest! - do you support a “wall of separation” between religion and the state, or only between the church and the state? Why?
Please leave a comment with your answers, if you care.
Endnote: Centennial Park was built by Nashville in 1897 to host the exposition of the 100th anniversary of Tennessee’s statehood. It was a time in America of high interest in classical civilization. A replica of the Parthenon was built on the present site for the exposition, but it did not include a statue. The structure was intended to be torn down after the exposition, but it proved so popular that it remained in the park. It was replaced in 1920 with the present, permanent structure, an exact replica of the original temple on the acropolis in Athens, and so certified by the Greek government. As I said, only in 1982 did the city take the decision to erect the statue of Athena.
by Donald Sensing, 8/28/2003 09:36:00 AM. Permalink
|
Thought experiments about the Ten Commandments
Questions for Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama legislature and federal Judge Myron Thompson
Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore has achieved international notoriety for placing a granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the state’s Supreme Court building. By federal court order, the monument was removed yesterday despite the defiance of Moore and protestors supporting him.
Moore had a piece in OpinionJournal this week explaining his position. He wrote that the issue in the case is not the monument itself, nor even the Decalogue itself, but simply one question: “Can the state acknowledge God?” We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.
By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, [federal] Judge [Myron] Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. I am not a lawyer, but if this and the rest of Moore’s piece are typical examples of his legal reasoning, then he is certainly correct that Alabama needs the favor and guidance of God, especially in cases he touches.
The invocation of God’s guidance Moore cites is in the preamble to the Alabama Constitution: We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty GOD, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama: It’s an awfully long step from a general declaration beseeching God to favor to the state’s people to using the preamble as specific authority for the specific display of the Ten Commandments.
Moore asserts that the US Constitution does not grant to the federal government, including the federal judiciary, the authority to tell the state government of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God in the conduct of its public business.
But Chief Justice Roy Moore is not, to borrow a phrase, “the controlling legal authority” for whether or how the Alabama state government may invoke "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" in the state’s judicial system or any element of the state’s apparatus.
That task, if it is to be done, belongs to the legislature of the state of Alabama, not to a lone judge, even if he is the state’s chief justice.
Moore accuses federal Judge Thompson, who ordered the monument’s removal, of issuing an edict not supporting the US Constitution as it is written, but as he “would personally prefer it to be written.” He says that Thompson has made his personal preference (by implication, a preference for godless government) the law of the land.
But Moore is really the one who has tried to make his personal preference the law. He enjoyed no legislative authority specifically to display the Decalogue as the symbol of compliance with the Alabama constitution. No one on either side of the issue has even hinted that the legislature requires any state court specifically to acknowledge God in any way.
Moore did all that on his own. Now, it may well be that the legislature has given broad power to the judiciary to maintain its own buildings and decide what displays they may use; such authority is common across America, existing in the federal judiciary as well as the states’.
So Moore may have thought he had inherent authority to mount the display. Even if so, I find it incredible that he didn’t also consider Section 3 of the Alabama constitution, which states, That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, . . . Whatever the Ten Commandments do, they do that. The Decalogue is not a generic, secular example of ancient law. The Commandments are religious law; moreover, not just generic religious law. They are Jewish law very specifically.
It’s not their Jewishness that matters, it’s the fact that they are so specifically the law of one “any religious sect, society, denomination,” Judaism, and later Christianity, which includes the Jewish Scriptures and the Commandments as part of its religious tradition.
The God referred to in the Commandments - and for that matter in the state Constitution’s preamble - is not just any old god, but a very specific identification of a particular God, identified in the entirety of the First Commandment: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” The God of the Commandments is the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, no other deity.
Roy Moore is wrong that he has the authority to determine, acting alone, how the Alabama state government shall invoke the favor of God, or that there is something uniquely desirable about the Ten Commandments as the means to do so.
So here are three thought experiments for Judge Moore, the state legislature and federal Judge Myron Thompson:
For Judge Moore: If you believe that the Alabama Constitution requires you, or at least permits you, to invoke “the favor and guidance of Almighty GOD” upon your court, then would you agree that a display would meet that test if it simply slightly paraphrased the Constitution’s preamble thus? The people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, invoke the favor and guidance of Almighty GOD for the maintenance of justice and government in the State of Alabama. If not, why not?
For the Alabama legislature: If it is indeed important to the terms of the state Constitution that the Ten Commandments specifically be displayed, will you pass legislation requiring that the Commandments be displayed in a manner approximately similar to what Judge Moore did? If not, then may we infer that the Ten Commandments are not specifically necessary to invoking “the favor and guidance of Almighty GOD” for the operation of the state’s Constitution and government?
For federal Judge Myron Thompson, a two-parter:
1. If the state Supreme Court mounts a display that basically quotes the state Constitution’s preamble, as I suggested above, and a challenge was brought, would you rule that the display was in accordance with or defiance of the US Constitution? If so, how would you justify the quoting of a state Constitution to be unlawful?
2. If the Alabama legislature did indeed mandate a display specifically of the Ten Commandments, declaring it to be in accordance with the state’s Constitution, would you rule that the legislature, and by implication the Alabama Constitution itself, is in defiance of the US Constitution? I think that is the real, as-yet unfought battle: when such a display is directed by a state legislature (whether in Alabama or elsewhere), using the state’s own Constitution as the authority, then the US Supreme Court may be forced to address the issue. And then Judge Moore’s question really will prove to be central: “Can the state acknowledge God?”
by Donald Sensing, 8/28/2003 07:23:00 AM. Permalink
|
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Speaking of the United Nations . . .
The Great Powers founded the UN in order to preserve their dominion over the globe.
The United Nations was the brainchild principally of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, although international assemblies of various kinds had been established long before. The League of Nations was formed after World War I. The United States never joined the League and the League fizzled away in the face of Italian aggression before the general outbreak of World War II.
Once America was an active belligerent in WW II, Roosevelt wasted no time in promoting his idea of a successor to the League. As early as a mere month after the attack on Pearl harbor, Roosevelt began using the term, "United nations." In fact, during January 1942, the US, Britain, the USSR and China signed a Declaration of the United Nations "to defend life, liberty, independence, and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands." Twenty-two other nations later signed it and the name stuck in its formal founding session years later in San Francisco.
This is a key fact: Roosevelt conceived of the UN as a means by which the Great Powers (the above-named four nations; note that France was excluded) would enforce order and discipline upon an unruly world. He stated this intention clearly to British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden and Churchill in the spring of 1943. That fall the four governments signed the Moscow Declaration in which they agreed to maintain international peace after WW II ended. Membership in the UN was to be open to any sovereign state, but in Roosevelt's mind the responsibility for policing the world would belong to the four Great Powers. The other three powers evidently agreed.
FDR discussed this postwar role with Churchill and Stalin at their conference in Tehran in November 1943. He actually called the group of the US, UK, USSR and China "The Four Policemen," who would have the authority on their own to use force against any threat to peace. It seems the four governments never discussed or considered that one of them might be such a threat.
By August 1944 France had weaseled its way into Great Power status. What we know today as the UN Security Council was at first called the Executive Council, with the five Great Powers as permanent members. At first there were to be six other member states, which would serve a term and rotate off. The grant of veto authority to the permanent members was discussed then as well and was finalized the next year.
In April 1945 the United Nations was formed in San Francisco. While it was intended to be an agency for resolution of disputes without war (and other purposes) its charter specifically said that regional alliances or other arrangements for security are not precluded.
Animosity between the western powers and the USSR began almost as soon as Germany surrendered. Roosevelt's dream - that the UN would be a means of preserving the Great Powers' cooperative hegemony - was stillborn as the UN became an ideological battleground of the Cold War.
by Donald Sensing, 8/27/2003 02:10:00 PM. Permalink
|
The UN out of Iraq?
The subject has come up again recently, so I link a second time to self-described liberal Michael Totten's view of July 20 that "the UN should have nothing to do with rebuilding Iraq (or any other country, for that matter.) It would grease the skids for another dictatorship because it is categorically against building democracy."
It was true then and it's true now.
by Donald Sensing, 8/27/2003 01:54:00 PM. Permalink
|
Except I heard him say it . . .
Calpundit links to a Washington Monthly piece that (surprise!) rates George W. Bush a bigger liar than any of the following presidents: Reagan, Bush the elder, or Clinton.
First "evidence" up: On many occasions during 2001 and 2002, President Bush talked about a campaign promise made in Chicago that he would only deficit spend "if there is a national emergency, if there is a recession, or if there's a war," sometimes adding, after 9/11, "Never did I dream we'd have a trifecta." Reporters pressed the Bush's communications staff to prove that Bush had actually made such a statement during the 2000 campaign, but the White House couldn't turn up any proof. Bush continued to insist he'd made the promise. Except that I heard Bush say it. Whether he said it specifically in Chicago, I can't say, but he definitely said it during a "town hall" format debate with Al Gore that was broadcast on TV. I was there (in front of the TV). I heard Bush say it. I remember it. Next up: In making the case for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, President Bush stated in early 2003, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Which means that Bush is a liar, I guess. Problem is, the British government did make that claim, even though the CIA was skeptical. Furthermore, the British government to this day stands by the claim and still maintains its intelligence was good. Whatever the case, it is definitely grossly premature to call Bush an outright liar on this statement, which is what the Monthly does.
The Monthly's panel of judges who rated the four presidents' (three Republicans, one Democrat) dishonesty was made up of Jodie Allen, Russell Baker, Margaret Carlson, Thomas Mann, Norm Ornstein, Richard Reeves, Larry Sabato, and Juan Williams. The "mendacity index" of each was judged to be
Reagan, 3.3 (out of five),
George H.W. Bush, 3.2
Bill Clinton, 3.1,
George W. Bush, 3.6.
What a surprise - a liberal magazine forms a panel of liberal "judges" who decide that liberal-Democrat Bill Clinton was more honest than all the Republicans. Well, bowl me over.
Next: a panel of Southern secessionists rate Abraham Lincoln as America's worst president!
by Donald Sensing, 8/27/2003 01:41:00 PM. Permalink
|
Hatred or forgiveness?
Read this post by Joe Katzman, including the linked article by Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik, "The Virtue of Hate".
I will post a response later today (I hope).
by Donald Sensing, 8/27/2003 09:48:00 AM. Permalink
|
"Nations are not altruism machines"
Who said that? Mother Jones online, that's who! So start here and keep going!
by Donald Sensing, 8/27/2003 06:45:00 AM. Permalink
|
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Some eye problems
I am awaiting new lenses for my glasses from Eyemasters. The order was filled once, but the lenses were not made correctly and had to be redone. My lenses can't be made in an hour; they have to come from Texas.
As I wait i am often attacked by eye stress and pain, since my eyes are fighting each other over focus and depth perception. Hence, typing is for the nonce a sometimes wretched experience. Like now.
So I'll try to post later tonight or tomorrow morning.
by Donald Sensing, 8/26/2003 04:53:00 PM. Permalink
|
Open Range - a review
Links: IMDB page. Movie’s own website.
How many times has The Western died and been resurrected? It was dead in 1992, then Clint Eastwood brought it back to life with his Academy-Award winning Unforgiven. The next year Kirk Russell breathed more life into the genre’s renewal with Tombstone, a pretty good, if inventive, retelling of the Wyatt Earp legend. Kevin Costner starred in another Wyatt Earp movie released the year after that, called, natch, Wyatt Earp.
Then the genre faded away except for some comic films such as Shanghai Noon. Now some critics say The Western is alive again with the release of Kevin Costner’s third directorial project, Open Range..
Costner previously directed 1990's Dances With Wolves, which won seven Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Directing. It was a big hit, even at three hours plus three minutes long. Next he directed The Postman, 1997, which didn’t do well at the box office and was three hours minus three minutes long.
Now comes Open Range at relatively svelte two hours, 15 minutes. The Oscar buzz has already started for Robert Duvall’s performance. I am wondering whether it is actually possible to make a bad movie if it has Duvall in it. He is an actor of unbelievable talent.
As fine as Duvall’s performance is, the movie would be good even with another actor in the role. I can easily imagine Gene Hackman in Duvall’s role, or for that matter, Michael Gambon, who does play in Open Range as the heavy.
The story itself is one you’ve seen a hundred times before in Westerns going back to the 1930s. Mean Denton Baxter (Gambon) owns a one-street town in the middle of nowhere. The sheriff is his lackey. Baxter’s special hatred is reserved for “open range” cattlemen, who drive their herds around the open country, foraging and grazing wherever they happen to wind up. That’s what Costner and Duvall do.
Costner plays Charley Waite, a man with a past. Duvall plays Boss Spearman, a man with a past. Come to think of it, Costner tends to play Men with a Past, especially when directing. It works in Open Range, though - why else but to run away from his past would a man spend 10 years riding the range with a crusty guy like Boss Spearman?
Baxter’s men do bad things to Spearman’s two other employees. The conflict is drawn. The showdown on Main Street (okay, it’s the only street) is inevitable.
There are three things that save Open Range from being a mere hack retelling of one of the hoariest Western themes. The first is the performances of Duvall and Costner. Costner downplays his part commendably well. Costner has always played the hero’s role anti-heroically, and here it works perfectly. He is a coiled spring; when released the result is almost shocking.
The release comes in the gun battle. Costner’s direction of the gunfight sequences is deft and sure. The pacing, the editing and the camera work are superb. From literally the first shot to the last, the old cliches are avoided. Its setup brings to mind a number of other last stands such as those in High Noon or High Plains Drifter, but the fight itself is nothing like them.
The whole story revolves around the gunfight. No matter how good the rest of the movie is, a substandard gunfight would torpedo it. Instead, the gunfight is so well done that you forgive the movie’s shortcomings in other parts.
The third thing that sets Open Range apart from hackery is the development of Costner’s and Duvall’s characters. Some critics have said that this makes the movie drag; one wrote, for example, that nothing at all happens for the first 20 minutes. Which is true in a way - there’s no action sequence for that time, but this is not an action movie. I might also remind you that in Matrix 2, nothing happened for the entire first hour, and it was an action movie.
It may well be that this is a 115-minute movie told in 135 minutes. The Other Hand Clapping thought so. I personally thought the extra time spent on character development was a plus, adding to the depth of the movie. Besides, movie tickets are so expensive these days that if the director wants to spend an extra 20 minutes telling the story, I don’t mind.
(However, the other characters are relatively under-developed compared to Charley and Boss. That may be what makes the middle 20 minutes or so seem to drag.)
Annette Bening plays a spinster who provides the love interest for the movie. She is the town’s doctor’s sister. Conveniently she and the doc have a house just outside town where Boss and Charley can hang out while figuring out what to do about the fix they’re in. The love interest between her and Charley is low-key and only once prominent. It doesn’t really work very well, but it doesn’t ruin anything, either. It just seems forced into the story, as if to make sure the movie included a major female role. After all, women buy theater tickets, too.
Whether Open Range will revive the Western again is an open question. But it is definitely worth seeing. It’s visually outstanding, the dialog is good except for only a couple of places and the gunfight is one of the best ever in the genre.
Overall, I give Open Range five slugs out of six from a Colt Single Action Army.
by Donald Sensing, 8/26/2003 07:46:00 AM. Permalink
|
Monday, August 25, 2003
British troops back in body armor
In the wake of the killing Saturday of three British Army military police in Iraq and the wounding of another, British soldiers there have resumed wearing flak vests and helmets. This after the Brits had patronized the US military for retaining a "Darth Vader" look which the Brits claimed alienated the Iraqi people. (hat tip: Trent Telenko, via email)
by Donald Sensing, 8/25/2003 06:57:00 PM. Permalink
|
Some catching up here
Here are some links to other people's post I have had squirreled away, meaning to publish, but haven't. Now I am, so go read them!
Some ink and phosphors have been used in recent weeks pondering whether the American Left is prejudiced against Catholics, in light of the difficulties Catholic judicial nominees have had before the Dems of the Senate judiciary Committee, and the Democratic filibuster to block the Senate from voting on them.
Author Tom Donelson writes of a lefty United Methodist professor who fits the anti-Catholic mold. I asked him why he criticized Roman Catholics for abortion but yet he never criticized his own church for opposing the death penalty for religious reason. Dr. Sample told me, "It is different for the Catholic Church is imposing their beliefs on us." My response to him was, "But Tex, why is it okay for us Methodist to tell politicians to oppose the death penalty but it is not okay for Catholics to lobby against abortions? Aren't we imposing our beliefs?" Tex just stared at me and just muttered, "It is different, Tom, it is different." I just smiled and just asked, "Tex, why it is different or is it that you just disagree with the Catholic position on abortion." Tex just walked away but l learned a valuable lesson, it was acceptable to be prejudiced against Catholics among some of the Methodist left. It is the last refugee of the modern day scoundrels. See also Ramesh Ponnuru's article at NRO. But not only is the Left possibly anti-Catholic, it is also anti-Semitic (as is the far Right). See here, and here and here.
Jesus Christ - humorist. Chris Lansdown has scriptural evidence that Jesus was a jokester, in an un-cruel sort of way. Well, yeah. And some observations about the temptations of Christ.
Michael Williams has a good, three-part series on democracy.Part 1: The 19th Amendment -- Good Idea?
Part 2: The "Right" to Vote, and Utility
Part 3: Why Do We Need Democracy? Trent Telenko seems to think that Iraq is the easy part in the Mid-East.The America military is learning how to occupy and successfully pacify a secular Arab tyranny. It will be far easier for America's military to occupy another secular Arab tyranny than an Islamic tyranny like Iran or Saudi Arabia. The name for that tyranny is Syria. After Iraq, it will be Syria's turn to play mud flat for Hezbollah and other Lebanese terrorist groups. Well, maybe. Actually, Iran was very secular before the ayatollahs took over and repetitive reports from Iran, by Iranians, show that the average Iranian wants to be religious in his or her own private practice, but wants to government to get out and stay out of religious regulation. That sort of defines secularism. As for Saudi Arabia, the religious tyranny there is curiously headed by a royal family that openly shuns religious strictures in their own personal lives. The religious enforcement is done by others.
Rantburg has more info on the possibility that Iraqi WMDs were sent before the war to Syria. (hat tip: Richard Heddleson)
Asia Times reports that Cuba has shut down a jammer Iran was using to jam US broadcasts aimed at Iran. The jammer was on Iranian-embassy property.
Let's see: Iran was named as a member state of the Axis of Evil. President Bush said, "You're either with us or you are with the terrorists." Castro lives in a state of perpetual paranoia about a US invasion to begin with. Iran jams American signals from Cuba. What to do, what to do?
Hasta la vista, jammer!
Days before Rich Lowry wrote about "The Indian Scam," how the Indian tribes use casino profits to buy California politicians, Californian Richard Heddleson sent me the link to an AZCentral.com piece detailing how California gubernatorial candidate, and present lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, is beholden to them (and not just the tribes, but a whole line of other groups). "He is a 'Mini-Me' of Davis," said Jamie Court, executive director of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, Calif. "It is the same interest groups, only in different proportions." Davis was a gold medal winner for being bought and sold by special interests. Bustamante is not as talented in getting the money, but apparently just as willing.
"What kind of politician do you think I am?"
"We have already ascertained that; now we're just haggling over the price."
Michael McNeil posts about the science of depleted uranium, the ultra-dense metal used to form high-velocity anti-tank rounds.
by Donald Sensing, 8/25/2003 02:48:00 PM. Permalink
|
Baptisms in the Tigris
Reuters writes about American soldiers being baptized in Iraq by their military chaplains. Nineteen-year-old Private Bill Goodwin was one of them.
Responding to the point that the Scriptures admonish, "Thou shalt not kill," Goodwin answered, "The Bible says 'thou shalt not kill' but the original Greek says 'thou shalt not take a judicially innocent life.' Saddam and his men are pretty evil, if they were tried in any court, they would be found guilty," said Goodwin. Now, I don't expect a nineteen-year-old Army private to know biblical languages, but the commandment cited is one of the Ten Commandments, written originally in Hebrew, not Greek.
In Hebrew, the Ten Commandments are phrased as negative commands, forbidding certain conduct. The commandments are explicated in Exodus 19:16 - 20:17. Verse 20:13 has the commandment concerned, "You shall not murder," or literally translated, "No murder."
In Hebrew, Lo ratsach, lo meaning to take the negative of the word that follows, ratsach, meaning murder.
Ratsach is not used in the Hebrew Scriptures to describe killing as in war or self defense, other words are used for those acts. So Pvt. Goodwin is correct that the commandment forbids unlawful killing, but not killing as part of battle.
The article points out that soldiers reject the notion that the war in Iraq is part of a clash of religions.
by Donald Sensing, 8/25/2003 01:29:00 PM. Permalink
|
Who'd a-thunk it?
Headline: "Kerry to Fault Bush on Iraq, Veterans"
Well, yeah. That's what opponents do.
by Donald Sensing, 8/25/2003 01:13:00 PM. Permalink
|
Suing every Jew in the world!
Some Egyptians in Switzerland are bringing a lawsuit against "all the Jews of the world" for taking gold, jewelry and other articles out of Egypt during the Exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt under Moses' leadership.
Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Al-Zaqaziq, says that the suit is baed on the fact that Zionism claims possession of the Holy Land based "on historical and religious sources," meaning the promise of the Land of Canaan to Moses and the Hebrews in slavery in Egypt.
The book of Exodus records that after Pharaoh finally gave the slaves permission to leave Egypt, Moses told them to go to the Egyptians and ask for valuable and houseghold items to take with them. The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians (Exod 12:35-36, NIV). So it sounds like to me that the Hebrews asked, the Egyptians acquiesced under spiritual manipulation by God. I wonder whether God is named in the suit.
No, because the Muslims believe that the Hebrew Scriptures (and the Christian new Testament) are irretrievably corrupted versions of the revelation Allah gave to the Jews and later the Christians. The Quran, they say, corrects the record.
At any rate, the children of Israel hied off to the east, and Himri picks up the story. The next day or so, "The Egyptian Pharaoh was surprised one day to discover thousands of Egyptian women crying under the palace balcony, asking for help and complaining that the Jews stole their clothing and jewels, in the greatest collective fraud history has ever known.
"The theft was not limited to gold alone. The thieves stole everything imaginable. They emptied the Egyptian homes of cooking utensils. One of the women approached Pharaoh, her eyes downcast, and said that her Jewish neighbor who lived in the house on the right of her house had come to her and asked to borrow her gold items, claiming she had been invited to a wedding. . . .
"Taking posession of the gold was understandable. This is clear theft of a host country's resources and treasure, something that fits the morals and character of the Jews." But fear not, the world-famous Ancient Royal Egyptian Police Corps (Pharaoh's Own) were on the job, says Hilmi, "A police investigation revealed that Moses and Aaron, peace be upon them, understood that it was impossible to live in Egypt, despite its pleasures and even though the Egyptians included them in every activity, due to the Jews' perverse nature. . . . So there you have it. I wonder what Hilmi would say if the Worldwide Jews decided to sue Egypt for putting them into slavery to begin with.
Obviously, this is just a Jew-baiting publicity stunt. Only a kangaroo court (say, an Egyptian one) could possibly consider it. Even so, the burden of proof upon Hilmi, at. al., is much greater than he imagines because there is no historical evidence that the Exodus ever occurred, except for the single account in Jewish Pentateuch.
There are no Egyptian records of the event at all. Zero, nada, zilch. In fact, there is no historical-archeological evidence that the Hebrews were ever in slavery in Egypt at all. There are persons referred to in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs as "hapiru" (sometimes transliterated "habiru") but there is no textual or historical connection between them and the people of the Exodus.
So Hilmi must rely on the book of Exodus to support the claim that there was an Exodus at all, and then explain why that part is accurate but the part about the Egyptians giving away their gold, instead of it being stolen, is false. All academic, of course . . . (hat tip to Vanderleun)
by Donald Sensing, 8/25/2003 12:26:00 PM. Permalink
|
Heh!
Again I say, heh!
by Donald Sensing, 8/25/2003 11:47:00 AM. Permalink
|
Why suicide-bombing terrorists are not the ultimate weapon
Wretchard at Belmont Club recounts why some commentators, such as Jessica Stern, think that suicide terrorists are the ultimate weapon, and why some terrorist leaders do, too, such as Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab.
But he says they are wrong. The short way of looking at it is this: First, kamikazes, then Hiroshima. So RTWT.
by Donald Sensing, 8/25/2003 09:49:00 AM. Permalink
|
Sunday, August 24, 2003
A correction to an earlier post
In my posting entitled, "Bigotry at StrategyPage.com," I named Mr. Adam Geibel as the author of the essay, "TERRORISM: Report From Saudi Arabia," and then took serious issue with the bigoted language the essay uses.
Mr. Geibel has emailed me to explain that he wrote the section on that page regarding matters relating to Kenya, but did not write the section about Saudi Arabia, wherein the offensive language occurred. There is no obvious way for a reader to ascertain that from the way the page is presented, so I think that my naming him as the author was reasonable, but it turns out it was incorrect.
While I still maintain that the essay is bigoted as I explained, I want to make it clear that Adam Geibel is not the author, and extend to Mr. Geibel my apologies for naming him as the writer. I am removing from the post references to his name.
by Donald Sensing, 8/24/2003 03:44:00 PM. Permalink
|
Saturday, August 23, 2003
This guy REALLY opposes Arnold for governor
The Angry Clam really, really, really, really doesn't want Arnold Schwarzenegger to be California's next governor.
Check out this poster and you'll see what I mean.
There's other stuff, too - scroll around and you'll see what I mean.
by Donald Sensing, 8/23/2003 08:27:00 PM. Permalink
|
Fun with the new guys
CPO Sparkey links today to a post from December, telling of some sailors aboard USS Enterprise having fun by convincing the new guy he needed to get qualified on the carrier's Nuclear Ejection Seat. That way if there was a reactor accident, he'd be able to eject off the ship. The story is very funny.
Anyone who has been in the armed forces has stories like that to tell. In the Army, for example, they send the new guy off to get a can of radio squelch or 50 feet of firing line or a left-threaded kanootin valve.
One of the favorite snipe hunts is for a "box of grid squares." The hunt comes from the fact that tactical maps are gridded into squares, printed on the map, if a kilometer per side. Eve new privates know this, so when some authority figure - an older soldier of a rank or two higher - invents a need for a box of grid squares and sends him off to get it, then he does.
When I was a second lieutenant in Korea, I was an artillery battery fire direction officer when my battery duty at fire base Four Papa One at the DMZ. One day Pvt. Snuffy, a mechanic, comes to our bunker and says that the Chief of Smoke (an E7, Sgt. 1st Class, whose duty position was Chief of Firing Battery) had sent him to get a box of grid squares.
Now an E7 has no business starting this nonsense. These kinds of snipe hunts are practical jokes played by E4's on E2s, not on E2s by E7s. I looked at the buck sergeant who was the fire direction chief, he looked at me, and we both said almost simultaneously, "Wait right here."
In those days, artillery ballistics computation was not much computerized. We computed firing data manually, using "charts and darts," as we said. We had two large, inclined tables. On one we mounted a large map of the potential targets areas. To keep the map clean we laid over it a sheet of transparent plastic that was manufactured gridded in the same scale as the map. We would notate targets and other pertinent data on the plastic overlay and derived terrain information from the map. The other inclined table had no map, just the overlay plastic over white paper. This chart was used only to compute direction data for firing. All the targets were marked on it as well.
The plastic overlays got worn out from constantly being written on, erased, and written on again. After about three days they had to be replaced. So we had a bountiful supply of used overlays. We'd keep them for several days then burn them all together. And all the overlays were gridded.
So my sergeant and I went to the back of the bunker and retrieved a used overlay. Using scissors, we carefully cut out 12-15 of the grid squares, grabbed an empty pencil box, marked it "Grid Squares" with a Magic Marker and gave it to Snuffy without the slightest hint of irony. He thanked me profusely, since he had been sent from the motor pool to the mess hall to the CP section to the base howitzer to the ammo section and finally to us, all with the stern admonition from the Smoke, "Don't come back here without the grid squares." Now, he had them. He was a happy young man.
I was told by another NCO the next day that Snuffy, innocent as a lamb, went back to Smoke and gave him the box, saying, "Lieutenant Sensing said he can give you all the grid squares you want." And that the look on the Smoke's face when he opened the box to find - sure darn enough, grid squares - was worth taking a burst of six to see.
by Donald Sensing, 8/23/2003 03:17:00 PM. Permalink
|
US economic forecast is up
Econopundit has economic predictions for the next 12 months.
by Donald Sensing, 8/23/2003 12:24:00 PM. Permalink
|
An Iraqi's view of the Palestinian problem
Iraqi columnist Khalid Kishtainy of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat writes of his bittnerness, that, in the final analysis, the Palestinian intellectuals do not really care about the suffering of their people. Most of them live in fancy houses in the U.S. or Europe , [drive] luxury cars, and [send] their children to attend prestigious schools. And every time a solution to the Palestinian problem is proposed they say 'No' [and choose] steadfastness, sacrifice, and Shahada [martyrdom]. And who is the shahid [martyr]? Not any of their sons. Not at all. Rather, one of the children of the unfortunate [Palestinians]. . . .
The history of Palestine is an entire century of acts of idiocy by its intellectuals, of egotism, of arrogance, and of national foolishness, which tore their land to shreds and brought catastrophes upon their people. . . .
Dear [reader]… why not join me in condemning the Arab intellectuals Then, turning his attention to Iraq, If the coalition forces withdraw now and leave the country, the [various] leaderships in Iraq will crush each other, as they have been doing for 13 years – because they are incapable of arriving at any agreement among themselves. . . .
The coalition forces will not withdraw from Iraq until they complete their mission. They are in Iraq at the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, and their mission is a noble and blessed one. They strengthen their presence [in Iraq] every day, with forces from other countries [whose leaders have] grasped the nobility of the mission carried out by the coalition forces. This mission is to sow the seeds of legitimacy of rule and of law, to establish a democratic government, to liberate women from the slavery and backwardness to which they are subject, to spread transparency in [public] administration, and to spread rationality and the spirit of science in education and in defending human rights." (via Econopundit)
by Donald Sensing, 8/23/2003 12:22:00 PM. Permalink
|
Friday, August 22, 2003
United Nations is distributing controlled drugs to Iraqis
Maybe it will help!
by Donald Sensing, 8/22/2003 11:16:00 PM. Permalink
|
The mysteries of military rank
Sgt. Mom has an outstanding essay on rank within the military. There's rank, and then there's rank. Sgt. Mom knows the difference. Her analysis of invisible rank - increased respect and sometimes privileges conferred by others based on demonstrated competence - is right on the mark.
I would add that in elite units invisible rank is almost always more important than official rank. When everyone is already qualified and credentialed at a very high level, even incrementally superior competence above that expected for one's official rank is greatly respected.
Sgt. Mom also talks about the commingling of social classes among the enlisted and officer corps. A fair number of officers started off enlisted, and no few NCOs have sons and daughters who went to college, joined ROTC and earned a commission. These facts make invisible rank based on social class practically a goner in the military. As I wrote last May, The American military is the best educated in the world, and this reinforces the ability of differing ranks to work together as co-professionals rather than superior-inferior. It’s not so easy for a colonel to feel terribly snooty over a platoon sergeant when both certainly have BA degrees and the odds are not bad that both will have MA degrees as well. Compound this fact with the fact that since the 1970s the professional education, inside the services, of the noncommissioned ranks has been dramatically improved with centralized, better schools so that their education progression rivals that of officers. This and other factors serve to "flatten" the military into a horizontal rather than verical integration, and that affects how rank is perceived and used.
by Donald Sensing, 8/22/2003 09:49:00 PM. Permalink
|
Howard Dean - Robin Hood!
In today’s WSJ, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean wrote, As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it. This is Deanspeak for two enormous tax hikes:
Dean will raise taxes significantly from the tax rates existing in January 2005, when he would take office if elected.
Dean will raise taxes again - “tax reform” always means “higher taxes” when coming from the left side of the Congressional aisle.
But let’s decode Deanspeak a little more. Dean wants to raise our taxes “to address the needs of the average American.” That means that he is sure he can spend an average American’s money better than the average American can - more wisely, I assume he means.
Dean’s arrogance is breathtaking, but not surprising. He is blind to the fact that what average Americans need more than anything else from the federal government is to be left alone so they can live their lives as they choose. And that means they need to keep their own money and spend it as they see fit.
But Dean doesn’t like the way average Americans spend their money, so he wants to take it away from them and give it to the government. Which, as we all know, is much wiser and more thrifty than those profligate average Americans.
“Invest in the nation's infrastructure” - can you say, “boondoggle?” Cost overruns? Payola? Special interests? Think not? Consider the “Big Dig,. . . a 12-year- construction project to replace the “elevated section of Interstate 93 Central Artery through downtown Boston with a much wider underground highway and to extend the Interstate 90 turnpike to Logan Airport via a third harbor tunnel. . . . These major accomplishments have come at a significant cost, which rose dramatically over a period of years. The cost for completed construction is estimated at $14.6 billion. The Big Dig’s cost escalation has raised questions about the proper locus of responsibility for accurately estimating, managing, and disclosing the costs of the project. The initial cost estimate was $2.6 billion. This runaway cost overrun is not usual, but imagine a Dean administration trying to manage a national-scale, multi-gazillion-dollar program with all 435 congressmen trying to funnel as much as they can into contractors in their districts. Really, imagine it.
“Put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.” What this means is that he will “reform” the tax codes to take money away from people who earn it and give it to people who don’t. The more money you make the more Dean will take away. He said so: But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for. There are those “average Americans” again. In Dean’s world, the average American is barely making it, “struggling” every day “to make ends meet.”
In other words, Dean believes the average American is poor. Well, according to the Census Bureau, half of all American households garnered income greater than $42,228 in 2001, which is not poor by any stretch of the imagination. In 2001, the percentage of Americans living at or below the poverty level was 11.7 percent, “lower than in most of the last two decades” when the rate exceeded 12 percent. “A family of four was classified as poor if it had cash income less than $18,104 last year.”
In Dean’s world view, there is a problem when some people don’t spend every nickel they make. Instead, they save and invest and insure with their money, the three legs of personal financial health. That way when bad times come they have the personal resources, and more importantly, the personal habits of thrift, to see them through.
Such people are anathema to Dean because they are the least reliant on sucking from the government teat. But Dean (and the other contenders of his party) want you to be dependent on government. Hence, Dean clearly says that he will impoverish the independent by giving their money away to the dependent.
But that will keep them dependent. Dean’s plan will slap golden manacles on the poor. On purpose.
Update: More data searching. The median income for families of four in 2001 was $63,278, which ain't a Mac-n-Cheese-diet income.
by Donald Sensing, 8/22/2003 06:31:00 PM. Permalink
|
More on the Saudis' vulnerability
The July issue of Reader's Digest has an article by Robert Baer called, "The Crumbling Kingdom." Baer is the author of Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, ranked 76th for sales on Amazon. Baer served 21 years with the CIA's Directorate of Operations in the Middle East; he is authoritative.
Baer's thesis is that, . . . the center of the global economy is a "kingdom built on thievery, one that nurtures terrorism, destroys any possibility of a middle class based on property rights, and promotes slavery and prostitution." This kingdom also sits on one quarter of the world's oil reserves, thus ensuring that it receives the full support and protection of the U.S. government. Reader's Digest does not maintain online archives of any sort, near as I can tell, (incredible isn't it? This is 2003!). So here is a digest of the Digest, with amplification of my own from other studies I have done over the years.
The House of Saud began to fall apart in 1995 when King Fahd suffered a near-fatal stroke. This event triggered a power struggle among his possible successors that is still ongoing. Unlike Euro-style monarchies, the successor to a king in Saudi Arabia is not blood-lineal. Instead, the senior princes choose a new king from among themselves.
The royals are stupendously profligate in their spending of the national treasury. Indeed, there is no such thing as a “national treasury” as we understand it. As I have written before, Saudi Arabia is less a true nation than a family-run business. The oil and its wealth are basically the private property of . . . the House of Saud. In fact, Saudi Arabia is much more a family-run business than a true nation-state. (And it's a Gambino-like family at that. . . .) Prince Abdul Aziz, for example, spent $4.6 billion “on a sprawling palace and theme park” without complaint by King Fahd. Between 10,000-12,000 princes feed at the family trough at stipends ranging from $800 to $270,000 per month. Fahd himself was known to drop $5 million per day during trips to Spain.
Fahd is still alive. He’s 80 and is trotted out for ceremonial appearances, but he has not authority or the ability to wield it. The struggle to take the reins of power was won by his barely-younger brother, Crown Prince Abdullah. Abdullah had always been the odd prince out. To begin with, his mother was from the Shammar tribe, once enemies of the Saud. And Abdullah had chosen the way of the desert. He never vacationed lavishly, [preferring] to spend his time in a tent, drinking camel’s milk and eating dates. He’d called for democratic reforms, the reining-in of conservative clergy and military disengagement from the United States. Fahd and Abdullah had a “toxic” relationship, and Abdullah was even accused of causing the king’s stroke.
Abdul Aziz had come to enjoy Fahd’s confidence in foreign policy matters, a bafflement to western observers, who never detected much training or ability from the young (30 years old today) prince. Many princes are worried about Aziz’s funding of radical Wahhabists, including causes and sects associated with Osama bin Laden.
Aziz had not gotten religion. He wanted the Wahhabists’ support in a bid to become king. He even managed a $100 million donation to the Taliban in 1997.
The growth of the House of Saud threatens to bankrupt the kingdom. In only one generation, the royal family could double to 60,000 members. Financial reserves have decreased form their high by 90 percent, now down to $21 billion.
But the people are lavishly supported by oil revenues as well. They get free health care, no interest loans and free college educations within Saudi Arabia. Utilities and domestic carrier-travel are heavily subsidized. The kingdom’s people have little incentive to work even though per-capita income has dropped from $28,600 in 1981 to less than $7,000.
Says Baer, Sign of impending disaster are everywhere, but the House of Saud prays the moment of reckoning will not come - and the United States looks away. . . . But sometime soon, the House of Saud is coming down. Well time will tell, of course, but there is one thing that we may reply on Saud to do, and that is protect its grip on power in Saudi Arabia. They seem to be awakening to the very grave threat posed to them by al Qaeda insurgents inside the kingdom. Their efforts to suppress the insurgency will increase. But whether the royals remain in power, the coming months or years will be difficult.
by Donald Sensing, 8/22/2003 05:11:00 PM. Permalink
|
"Be careful what you preach - someone might believe you!"
That was advice one of my homiletics professors gave our class one day in seminary, and upon reflection, it's a sobering thought. The importance of remembering this proverb is illustrated twice today.
First, the bigotry I already wrote about in my post immediately below this one, which I'll not re-cover here. The second is from an equally unlikely source - the cooperative blog, Winds of Change, founded and managed by Joe Katzman, with whom I have enjoyed much email conversation going back before he started blogging.
Every nice thing Michael Totten says about Joe is true. His blog has rocketed to the summit level of premier blogs, linked to by hundreds of others, read by thousands per day, frequently cited. It was a big step to invite other writers to post directly to the site, but Joe took that decision about the beginning of this year and now his team-written blog is stronger than ever.
Joe posted a rebuke to his team member, Trent Telenko, for commenting about the UN bombing in Baghdad, "Too bad the Al-Qaeda didn't use a bigger bomb." Joe wrote today, "That's unacceptable." Which is true.
Now sometimes one's fingers on the keyboard get ahead of one's brain doing the thinking. And we bloggerati often pride ourselves on how snarky we can sound or on what snappy retorts we can make. But . . .
"Be careful what you preach write - someone might believe you!"
In response to Joe's reproach, Trent posted a response that deepened the hole he had dug. He said he was filled with disgust - not at the murderers, but at Kofi Annan and the UN as a whole. He said the US would have to destroy the UN "eventually" and that for terrorists to blow up the U.N. building in Iraq "was poetic justice at the very least, save for the innocent Iraqis killed."
Now I have to try to decide where Trent's heart is on this because it matters as to whether I believe him when he writes. And the evidence is ambiguous. In this follow-up post he wrote, "It was morally wrong to suggest the U.N. deserved to be truck bombed," but re-emphasized (strongly) that he "will shed no tears and feel no pity that the U.N. either got bombed by Al-Qaeda" or someone else. Which is a pretty confusing message, istm.
So does Trent want certain other members of the UN bureaucracy dead? At best, the answer is unclear, from what he has written. If Trent does not mean that the UN bureaucracy should be killed, then I think he's got a very deep hole to climb out of. But he's the one who dug it.
by Donald Sensing, 8/22/2003 03:55:00 PM. Permalink
|
Bigotry at StrategyPage.com
Shame upon StrategyPage for publishing bigoted tripe.
In an otherwise mostly good essay about the situation in Saudi Arabia that I cited immediately below, the unnamed writer goes momentarily stupid and offensive at the same time. Referring to Saudi Arabia, he wrote: With unemployment at 40 percent among recent college graduates, there are a lot of bored young men with little to lose and a susceptibility to being swayed by demagogues promising both a better life AND a closer relationship to Allah in the bargain. (Check any good Christian political group in the American south for a local version of the same thing) What kind of idiotic, bigoted nonsense is that? Would the writer care to name whom he refers to? Thank you, you unnamed nitwit, for being proving your bigotry against both Christians and the American South.
That's not all that proves it, either. Just two paragraphs earlier, the essayist writes, In the West, a hostile press and a militant Christian neo-conservative movement assumes the Saudi government is in league with Al Qaeda . . . . Let pass the nonsense about a press hostile to Saudi Arabia; the American media have with very few exceptions treated the kingdom with kid gloves. Note well, though, that "militant" Christians are described pejoratively.
You know, "militant" Christians and "militant" Islamists - all same-o, same-o, aren't they? Southern American Christian "militants" are just like radical Islamists, aren't they?
I would ask the writer specifically to define exactly what are Christian "militants," and what they do that makes them "militant?" Then cite why you think that such persons - assuming you actually can identify any - assume the Saudi government is "is league" with al Qaeda, and how such persons may be fairly characterized as "neoconservatives."
Then define exactly what is a "good Christian political group in the American south." Name one, if you can, then demonstrate that its adherents are potential revolutionaries to overthrow the American government because of their "susceptibility to being swayed by demagogues promising both a better life AND a closer relationship" to God in the bargain. Don't throw the KKK at me unless you are willing to face the fact that it was strong not only in the South (it survived in the midwestern, northern states longer than the South) and is defunct now, anyway. And was not a "political" group. And was not Christian. And was not revolutionary.
The writer will not be able to meet any of these challenges because what he has written is code language to show his disdain for people who do not share his ideology.
The writer needs to put up or shut up. And squelch his bigotry.
by Donald Sensing, 8/22/2003 12:42:00 PM. Permalink
|
Saudi ruling Prince Abdullah takes page from Bush's playbook
In November 2001, President Bush proclaimed to the governments of the world, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." It was a theme he repeated for a few months afterward.
It seems the prince ruling Saudi Arabia (King Fahd being mentally disabled), Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, has taken a page from Bush's book. Abdullah has faced up to the fact that Saudi Arabia is seriously threatened by a full-blown insurgency, not merely domestic malcontents or "militants" (even though Abdullah's government continues to call the terrorists that). Hence, Abdullah recently appeared on national television making clear it was the intention of the government to destroy the militants. He also put the people of Saudi Arabia on notice that there was no middle ground in a stinging attack on sympathizers. "In the decisive battle between good and evil, there is no place for neutrality and no room for stragglers. Those who even just sympathize with terrorists are themselves terrorists, and they will receive their just punishment." One advantage Abdullah has in relating to ordinary Saudis is that he is an ascetic. He has always shunned the high-living lifestyle that the other princes embrace, even to the point of making his household in Bedouin-style tents in the desert.
Most Saudis considerably resent the un-Moslem high life the royal princes tend to enjoy, considering their lifestyle to be corrupted by western influences and materialism. Ordinary Saudis are far from wealthy; the nation's oil revenues enrich the royals but don't trickle down to the people, except in a socialist sort of way for services.
By refusing the luxuries that corrupt the other high-ranking princes, Abdullah carries more moral capital with the people than his peers.
by Donald Sensing, 8/22/2003 10:19:00 AM. Permalink
|
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Don't get mad, get even
Tom Farmer and Shane Atchison of Seattle, Washington, received such lousy service at a DoubleTree Hotel that they internet-posted a PowerPoint briefing for the hotel's manager on the internet. It is both hilarious and devastating.
Slide 8, showing the past and future career path of the inept clerk whom they dealt with, is very funny. (via Jeff Jarvis, who blogged a lot about the bad experience he had recently at a DoubleTree.)
by Donald Sensing, 8/21/2003 05:08:00 PM. Permalink
|
More on "special interests"
Melburn R. Park, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the Dept. Anatomy and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. I have to admit I struggled very hard to pass Biology 101 in college, so Dr. Park's credentials seem mightily impressive to me.
Dr. Park was kind enough to share some thoughts about what constitutes "special interests" in American politics, a topic I wrote about yesterday. Says Dr. Park. I have found it useful, or at least intellectually pleasing, to narrow my definition of Special Interest Group to include only those groups whose political interest is monetary. Personal or group financial gain is the special interest even though it is common human nature. Special interests are selfish and because they seek a bigger share of a limited pot, are against the common good.
In this scheme of things, of the groups you name, the Screen Actor's Guild, the AMA, the NASP (indeed, all professional organizations, including mine), as well as the AARP are special interests groups. The NRA, MADD, and ACLU are examples of Advocacy Groups. If they are true to their tenets they are lobbying for public policy principles and, by and large, no personal gain is desired.
"Special Interest" has been a pejorative term for as long as I can remember, usually directed at those groups that the conventional wisdom deems as bad. The NRA has been a perennial victim and for a good time the arguments against the NRA extended to the point of trying to portray it as a true special interest group, i.e. as the lobby for the gun industry, and thus having monetary interests. It's not and it doesn't beyond what is said next.
There's an independent dimension in this. The general trend is for advocacy groups to evolve into special interest groups. The evolution of advocacy groups was blogged about by someone in the year, but I don't remember by whom. [Not me - DS] MADD is a good example. Having attained their goals, they can't go out of the lobbying business because the officers and staff that run them depend for their livelihoods on the continued existence of the organization. Their agenda is no longer the cause they tout but keeping the coffers full and the pink slips away. The money involved here, however, is very small potatoes indeed, and usually raised via private contributions (or is that bunko schemes) compared stakes the large special interest groups play at. Yes, it is desirable to distinguish as Dr. Park does between organization that advocate private or commercial interests and those that advocate public-policy interests. On the face of it, the former urge policies be adopted that benefit relatively few, the latter advocate policies that (they claim) benefit all the people.
However, I am not quite so sure that the distinction is quite as clear as Dr. Park seems to indicate.
Take for example the federal bailout of Chrysler Corporation the Congress authorized in December 1979. Absolutely there were tremendous monetary interests - personal gain - for Chryco execs. But also for Chryco's workers, all 140,000 of them, who would have been on the street if the company had gone under. Was the bailout serving private interest or public good? To put jobless 140,000 workers at one time would have garnered enormous adverse consequences to them personally, but also to the cities and states in which they lived - as well as the American auto industry as a whole. So when Chrysler executives and the UAW lobbied Congress for loan guarantees, how narrowly shall we define their special interests? Regardless of the answer, I think we'd have to agree that private interest and public good is not always clear.
The blade cuts the other way, too. Thanks to the "public advocacy" of environmental groups, retrieving oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was blocked last year. Is the public better off? I say no, that we are worse off. So whose interests were served? I say strictly the private interests of the "advocacy" groups, even if their members didn't personally profit from the fight.
Which is pretty much one of the key points Dr. Park makes. The slide from true public-good advocacy to selfish advocacy wrapped in a mantle of righteousness is very short. Very quickly do such organizations reach "organizational maturity," when their principal efforts are focused on sustaining the organization rather than working the cause they were founded on. The mainline American churches, for example, reached organizational maturity decades ago.
But it is very difficult to discern which organizations are which.
by Donald Sensing, 8/21/2003 05:06:00 PM. Permalink
|
It's better than you think . . .
. . . For us, but worse than we are told for the enemy. That's according to Belmont Club, referring to my earlier post about who really wins when US troops are ambushed in Iraq. But, says he, When the US forces are doing the ambushing things are very bad for the terrorists. The Belmont Club's informal analysis is that about 60 perps are killed or captured each day, based on a sample of operations and known operational tempo. And that doesn't include what doesn't get reported. The most recent celebrity perp to fall is Chemical Ali, who was captured several days ago but kept out of the news while followup contacts were prosecuted. Although each American death is a tragedy, the terrorists are losing badly in the ruthless arithmetic of the battlefield. Good point, and this is a good blog. So go read!
by Donald Sensing, 8/21/2003 04:08:00 PM. Permalink
|
The future of Hamas terrorists
What took the WSJ and NYT so long to see the obvious?
Glenn Reynolds links to Hawken Blog which points out that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times actually agree that if the palestinians and Israe are ever to have a real chance at peace, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas must disarm and disband Hamas by force. Hamas is the Murder, Inc., organization that did this two days ago, the latest in a long line of murdering the innocent.
Abbas said in June that he would not lift a hand against Hamas after Hamas said it would bomb Israel "into rubble."
Why have the WSJ and NYT just now concluded that Hamas must be crushed by force? On June 11 Hamas blew up a Jerusalem bus, killing 16 people right away and injuring more than 100 others. The murders were only three days after Abbas announced he would never use force against Hamas, and only a week after Hamas explicitly rejected Abbas' office and renounced Abbas himself. I said then, Hamas will never case its colors voluntarily. Until it is crushed there will never be peace. And only the Palestinians themselves can crush it. A year before, commentators said that civil war to establish the PA's authority might be necessary.
Actually, Israel itself went through the same sort of trial as it fought for its independence in 1948, resulting in a short Jewish civil war - the Irgun vs. Haganah/IDF - to determine just who would be the sovereign authority for the new Jewish state. It is exactly the question that Abbas must face. So far, he is deciding that Hamas is the sovereign authority in Palestinia.
If Abbas continues to relinquish sovereignty to Hamas, then Israel and America will soon clonclude that he is just as irrelevant a figure as Yasir Arafat. If Abbas does not crush Hamas, Israel will.
by Donald Sensing, 8/21/2003 03:52:00 PM. Permalink
|
I gotta get me one of these!
Yes, indeed!
by Donald Sensing, 8/21/2003 03:05:00 PM. Permalink
|
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
What is a "special interest?"
You and me and everyone else, buddy
Arnold Schwarzenegger repeatedly told the audience in today's press conference that he would "represent the people, not the special interests" who have bought out the professional politicians.
But what is a special interest?
When I lived in DC, a man at my church was a lobbyist. His perspective was this: everyone is a member of some special interest because everyone is affiliated into groupings of some kind. All groups have interests that are in some way special to each group.
Here are some special interest groups:
The Screen Actor's Guild
The National Rifle Association
The American Medical Association
The AARP, which has a huge membership and is probably the most powerful lobby in Washington
National Association of Sales Professionals (NASP)
The list goes on about forever. Arnold is mistaken if he thinks he will be able to do business without considering special interests. "Californians" simply refers to the people who live within a defined geographic area. But Californians have different interests. And every one of them considers his/her interests special.
True, every Californian is united in wanting a financially solvent state with a balanced budget, not in debt. But there is and will be a big difference on who they think should surrender something special to get it.
Example: Arnold wants to create new jobs in California and everyone on the street will nod vigorously in agreement. But not in practice. New jobs means more people. And more people means real estate inflation, wage inflation, greater strain on cities' infrastructure, development of open land, more congestion, and more.
The people of California are not united on the desirability of those things and once California's economy recovers, under Arnold or someone else, people will form organization (special-interest groups) to limit growth in some way.
However, Arnold's main objection seems to be that professional politicians are making their fortune by being paid off by certain special interests to "over-represent" them at the expense of others. Of course that's valid, but those are the politicians Arnold will have to deal with. The recall affects only the governor's seat.
Every office holder represents some groups at the expense of others because some groups have more members than others, more money than others, better PR than others and their positions just make more sense than others. An independently-wealthy occupant of the governor's mansion won't change that.
Arnold will find that he will have to deal with special interest groups and their lobbyists and elected officials because there simply is no one else to deal with.
by Donald Sensing, 8/20/2003 03:37:00 PM. Permalink
|
Schwarzenegger threatens Warren Buffet
In a speech being broadcast on cable news, Arnold Schwarzenegger just told the media, "If Warren Buffett mentions Prop 13 again, he'll have to do five hundred situps."
Well, that would shut me up pretty good.
by Donald Sensing, 8/20/2003 03:00:00 PM. Permalink
|
Righteousness will prevail!
I linked a long time ago to "Chief Wiggles," a military member blogging from Iraq. Yesterday he posted a moving essay on the aftermath of the bombing of the UN headquarters. What is even more disturbing is the fact that many of these acts of terrorism are committed by non-Iraqi people, those from other countries who have traveled here for the sole purpose of disrupting our efforts to give to these people a life free from fear, bondage, and torture. As if their small random acts of violence will even put a dent in our resolve to continue in our efforts to provide security and freedom to these people. . . .
This is the right thing to be doing; righteousness will prevail over the evil intentions of misguided hate filled people. Keep the faith. Do your part in assisting us to be able to continue until we are finished with our plans. We need your help. Tell everyone you know that we will not give in to their negative reporting and we will not give up until we are done.
Thought you would like to know. (boldface original) I am filled with admiration and gratitude for men and women like the Chief.
by Donald Sensing, 8/20/2003 01:49:00 PM. Permalink
|
Did Democrats torpedo Bush's plan to upgrade power grids two years ago?
Bill Hobbs says the New York Times says yes. That's the Noo Yawk Times, mind you!
by Donald Sensing, 8/20/2003 01:36:00 PM. Permalink
|
The atom bombings
The most destructive American weapon against Japan was blockade; the Japanese high command's greatest fear was of blockade-induced revolution
August is the anniversary month of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an event which led quickly to the capitulation of the Empire of Japan, ending World War II. I haven't written about the decision to bomb and its consequences even though I find the history leading up to the bombings compelling, as well as the aftermath.
Much of the anti-Americanism of the American Left and foreign nationals springs condemning the US as the only country ever to employ atomic weapons in war. The communist propagandists especially made much hay out of that fact. The Left has proclaimed the bombings as unjustified or worse for decades.
Only the passage of time will settle the argument, as the wartime generation passes away and the topic no longer grabs the public attention any more. There are some resources worth reading now, though.
Austin Bay posted the text of a letter written by James A. Michener to a friend in October, 1995. Michener was serving in the US Army Air Corps in the Pacific when the bombs were dropped. He wrote, Never once in those first days nor in the long reconsiderations later could I possibly have criticized Truman for having dropped that first bomb. True, I see now that the second bomb on Nagasaki might have been redundant and I would have been just as happy if it had not been dropped. And I can understand how some historians can argue that Japan might have surrendered without the Hiroshima bomb, but the evidence from many nations involved at that moment testify to the contrary. From my experience on Saipan and Okinawa, when I saw how violently the Japanese soldiers defended their caves to the death I am satisfied that they would have done the same on Kyushu. . . .
. . . if you are unlucky enough to become engaged in [war] you better not lose it. The doctrine, cruel and thoughtless as it may sound, governs my thought, my evaluations and my behavior. I could never publicly turn my back on that belief, so I have refused opportunities to testify against the United States in the Hiroshima matter. . . . I know that I was terrified at what might happen and d----d relieved when the invasion became unnecessary. I accept the military estimates that at least one million lives were saved and mine could have been one of them. I have known a few men, also serving in the armed forces in the Pacific, who completely agree. My father-in-law, an Army officer in 1945, veteran of eight combat amphibious assaults in the Pacific, is convinced that he is alive because the atom bomb canceled the invasion of Japan. My father was assigned to the Pacific Fleet in 1945 and wound up on an aircraft carrier, serving a battle station as a 40-mm antiaircraft gunner. Carriers were primary kamikaze targets.
There are two essential books to understand what happened and why. One is a little-known work of Japanese historians, written eight years after the bombing, Japan's Longest Day. Their focus is on the period between the Nagasaki bombing and the radio address of Emperor Hirohito in which he announced that the war "had not turned in Japan's favor." They painstakingly document the fact that even the atomic bombings did not persuade all the Japanese high command to surrender. A coup was actually attempted by an army general, who sent troops to seize the emperor and halt the broadcast. The coup failed, of course, but as Wellington had said about Waterloo, it was a close-run thing.
The second book is an award-winning book, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, by Richard B. Frank. A very comprehensive history, Frank documents the Japanese plan for defending against the invasion, using Japanese documents and records. But his best contribution is the way he shows the context in which the Japanese bombings occurred.
Frank shows that the most destructive weapon used against Japan in 1945 was blockade, which robbed Japan of raw materials, petroleum and most vitally, food from the Asian mainland. The blockade was enforced by submarines and B-29 bombers, which laid mines throughout the Sea of Japan, concentrating them in the approaches to Japan's harbors. Japanese industry was surprisingly resilient to aerial bombing but could not function when its raw materials were so successfully interdicted.
The Japanese people came dangerously close to actual starvation. By the time of the atom bombings, the per capita calorie intake was much less than 1000 per day for adults, and was declining steadily. Typhoons so damaged crops in October 1945 that massive US food aid was required to prevent enormous deaths from malnutrition. Had the war still been going on then, as it would have been without the bombings, the Japanese death toll would have been very high.
Throughout most of 1945, 500,000 civilians were dying monthly at the hands of the Japanese occupiers in the Asian and Pacific lands Japan still occupied. The Left has never acknowledged the terrible toll Japan was taking among its subjugated peoples.
Author Frank shows that within a day of the first bombing, Japanese scientists had correctly identified the weapon's type. Even so, no one's first thought was of surrender. In fact, the bombs did not compel Japan's surrender at all; neither did the bombs persuade Hirohito to issue the command. Their collective, non-negotiable condition for capitulation was that the Emperor and his office must remain intact, along with the symbols of his divine authority (something akin to the British crown jewels and scepter).
Once the allies covertly guaranteed both, the atomic bombings provided the excuse, rather than the real reason, to accept the allies' terms. Why? The overriding fear of the high command was the destruction of the emperor's office and line, and the most serious threat thereto was revolution by the Japanese people themselves. The American blockade was so punishing the populace that the Japanese internal security service had bona fide reasons to believe revolution would break out. Even the most hawkish of the hawks were petrified by this prospect.
Once the Americans promised not to abolish the emperor's office or claim the imperial symbols as war prizes, surrender suddenly became the "least-worst" option.
Related - Bill Hobbs has some read-worthy information about the new display of the restored Enola Gay, the bomber that dropped the Hiroshima bomb.
by Donald Sensing, 8/20/2003 12:47:00 PM. Permalink
|
. . . the rest of the story
Ralph Peters writes that when your enemy strikes only soft targets, such as a practically undefended UN headquarters in Baghdad, it is a sign that they are weak. Says Ralph, "It's the best they can do."
Correct. But what is not reported in the media is the full story of the attacks on American soldiers. We always hear the account of the latest GI to fall, but what isn't reported is that US troops are giving back much more violence and death than they are getting. Writes Ltc John H. Taylor from Iraq: Several attacks have been thwarted by Army and Marine personnel shooting first. We're also much better shots than the enemy. They tend to spray and pray, while we tend to just shoot them.
The Army has more attacks because their AOR encompasses Baghdad and the surrounding areas where the bulk of the attacks have taken place. I've noticed the press does a poor job in reporting our response to these ambushes. To put it plainly, we kick butt! The usual 'real' report reads: "Five IZ (Iraqis) fired AK-47s and RPGs at patrol (or convoy), soldiers (or marines) returned fire resulting in 3 KIA, and 1 WIA, 1 escaped. RPGs missed, AK fire ineffective, no US casualties."
We do take some casualties, and that is not a good thing, but we are very effective at counter-firing at the ambushes. Aggressiveness has proven very effective.
The enemy is primarily made up of insurgents from Iran and Syria who hire Iraqis to attack coalition soldiers, not disgruntled Iraqis who are mad that their power is not on all day yet. The fact is that militarily, we are winning. The fact is that not many Iraqi nationals are fighting US troops; the vast majority are other Arabs. This is unreported by the media. So even this lt. col. has turned cynical: We read press articles on the net that have no resemblance to reality every day. Just last week I read an article where a car bomb killed fifteen American soldiers, destroyed three armored vehicles, and one tank at the Baghdad Airport. Our unit there was surprised when we told them about it since they've been there the whole time and never heard any explosion. The press lies, they make things up, and they misrepresent things to forward their own ideals. It would be funny except that so many people believe them. Actually, sir, I don't think that all that many people do believe them.
by Donald Sensing, 8/20/2003 09:20:00 AM. Permalink
|
Depends whose ox is gored, I guess
I referred yesterday to Michael Totten's comment on how the media would refer to the UN bombers in Baghdad. Today we know the answer. It is especially informative to compare the Washington Post's terminology for the Baghdad bombers with the terminology used for the Jerusalem bus bomber.
Baghdad: "Attack on U.N. Shows Shift in Terror's Focus" (italics added). The massive truck bomb that devastated U.N. headquarters here today signaled a dramatic escalation in terrorism. . . . Jerusalem: " Suicide Bomber Strikes Jerusalem Bus, Kills 18" (italics added). A Palestinian bomber triggered a massive, fiery explosion tonight aboard a crowded double-cabin bus . . . . If you kill adults working for the UN, an overtly political organization, you're a terrorist, but if you kill Israeli women and babies, you're merely a "bomber."
by Donald Sensing, 8/20/2003 07:54:00 AM. Permalink
|
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Rough day today with funerals
I'm exhausted. Today I conducted funeral services for Mr. Andrew Napolitano, 73, who owned a number of Carmike Cinemas franchises in the area. Usually, funerals aren't all that tiring, but Napolitano's was at 1:15, 2:10; 3:05, 4:00, 4:30, 5:10, 7:00 and 7:40.
by Donald Sensing, 8/19/2003 10:08:00 PM. Permalink
|
My inbox was swamped, was yours?
The "Sobig" worm is back.
by Donald Sensing, 8/19/2003 05:05:00 PM. Permalink
|
This is why terrorists are terrorists, not "militants" and not "the resistance"
Update: Cable news is reporting that Hamas has claimed the deed was theirs.
Update 2: Michael Totten points out, "The resistance" is a loaded term, and I know very well what it means to people in left-wing circles. It implies justice and right, especially when juxtaposed with "the occupation." And most in the media use this term to describe Baathist and terrorist hit squads.
It will be interesting to see if thugs who kill UN envoys will be called "the resistance" or if they will get a new name. Yes, now that terrorists have blown formerly sacrosanct United Nations personnel to bits, we'll see whether the terminology changes.
by Donald Sensing, 8/19/2003 03:16:00 PM. Permalink
|
Al Qaeda takes credit for northeast blackout
Showing how pathetically desperate they really are to make people think they matter any more, some al Qaeda leaders demand to be recognized as the cause of last week's power outage that affected 50 million people in the northeast US and Canada.
I know, this sounds like something that belongs on Scrappleface, but it's not. A staement released by al Qaeda's Abu Hafs Brigades, reported by the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, claimed, Let the criminal Bush and his gang know that the punishment is the result of the action, the soldiers of God cut the power on these cities, they darkened the lives of the Americans as these criminals blackened the lives of the Muslim people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. The Americans lived a black day they will never forget. They lived a day of terror and fear… a state of chaos and confusion where looting and pillaging rampaged the cities, just like the capital of the caliphate Baghdad, and Afghanistan and Palestine were. Let the American people take a sip from the same glass. The statement also said that it cost al Qaeda only $7,000 to conduct the operation, but the blackout "cost the U.S. Treasury no less than ten billion U.S. dollars . . . . Die of sorrow!"
by Donald Sensing, 8/19/2003 08:18:00 AM. Permalink
|
Why the USA is the world's only hyperpower
It's the size of the country, the economy and the population
I earlier today referred to Trent Telenko's post on Winds of Change about the enormous advances being made in information technology by the American military. Back in May I essayed on a comment made by a captured Iraqi colonel about the Americans: "U.S. military technology is beyond belief."
In it I observed that while the US spends far more money on its military than other countries do on theirs, funding along tells only half the story. A huge bite is taken out of defense dollars for personnel costs. Our military members have higher salaries than other nations' troops. More than half our enlisted force is married, and that fact brings with it a whole host of related costs - housing or housing allowances, medical support, schools, and so forth.
So the real funding advantage of American forces is found less in numbers comparisons than it is in funding endurance. The post-Vietnam austerity ended in the last year of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Under the Reagan administration, funding climbed dramatically and has stayed there since. There were decreases during the Clinton years, yes, but not anything like the services had to endure after WW 1, WW 2, Korea and Vietnam.
But now let's look at dollars. One of the big advantages of steady funding, as opposed to big cycles of largesse and starvation, is that development of systems and technologies can progress more evenly. The programs are much more manageable and cost efficient, saving money over the long term. As a result, there is less pressure as time passes to slash "runaway" costs because costs much more rarely run away from the forecast and plan.
These characteristics enable the United States to pay for a fantastically capable military with only a tiny portion of the country's overall economy.
The CIA's latest chart of worldwide military spending as a percentage of countries' gross domestic product (GDP - the measure of a nation's economic size) chart reveals that in fiscal year 1999, the latest calculation available, military spending in the US comprised just 3.2 percent of the nation's economy. In contrast, eight Middle Eastern countries (Israel not listed) outspent the US in GDP-percentage terms in the mid-1900s. Oman led at almost 15 percent, followed by Saudi Arabia at more than 13 percent.
Germany's figure (2002) is 1.38 percent, Israel's 8.75 percent (2002), France's 2.57 percent, the UK's 2.32 percent.
Of course, the percentage figure alone reveals not much. The 2004 projection of US defense spending calls for it to comprise 3.5 percent of the GDP, up .3 percent from 1999. Think about that - when at war, conducting military operations across central and Asia and the Middle East, we raised our military spending by a mere 0.3 percent of the GDP, from 3.2 to 3.5 percent.
That is the same percentage as the peaceful year of 1996! As a percentage of the nation's GDP, military spending for wartime has basically not changed from peacetime.
That is a striking illustration of what I meant by the importance of steady funding for American preparedness. The dollar figure of the FY 2004 defense budget is $390 billion. If that is 3.5 percent of the nation's economy, that means that the GDP for 2004 is projected to be $11,142.8 billion ($390 billion divided by .035). In figures, that's $11,142,857,000,000 - 11 trillion, 142 billion, 857 million dollars.
(In contrast with defense spending, Americans legally wagered $482 billion in casinos, state lotteries, race tracks and other venues in 1994, an amount that has continued to increase.)
The second most powerful nation in the West, the United Kingdom, had a GDP of $1.52 trillion (2002 estimate). For the UK to match America's defense spending would require it to raise defense spending from 2.32 percent of its GDP to almost 26 percent. But the UK's military would literally have nowhere to put the materiel purchased with such a budget; the UK doesn't have enough real estate in the home islands or overseas to house or warehouse the military that a US-sized defense budget would pay for.
Only one other country in the world has both an economy large or robust enough to support a military establishment competitive with America's or the real estate to support it. Don't forget as well that America's population is so large that a only tiny proportion of its people need serve in the military for the US to maintain hyperpower status. America has 1.4 million persons on active military duty, less than one-half percent of the nation's population.
Russia has the people, but its GDP of $1.35 trillion (2002 est.) is smaller than Great Britain's so Russia has vanished as a military or economic competitor to the United States.
What about India? It has more than a billion people and its GDP is $2.66 trillion (CIA 2002 est.). Like China, though, estimates of India's GDP vary; some commercial analysts say it is about $1.1 trillion. India has been spending between 2.5 - 4 percent of its GDP on its military for several years, at least, a figure unlikely to increase. Other estimates of India's defense spending are much lower. Asia Times said that India raised its "military expenditure by a whopping 28.2 percent ($3 billion) in a single year." That would mean that the defense budget was previously in the $7 billion range; the CIA estimates that in 2002 India's military spending amounted to $11.52 billion.
Only China has a chance in the next few decades of competing with the US. China has 10 million men coming into military-service age each year, so it certainly has the human resources to compete militarily with the US. China's GDP is just about half of America's, $5.7 trillion (2002 est.) Although the Chinese government says its military spending amounts to 1.5 percent, western analysts say the real figure is close to six percent. If so, that means that China's expenditure amounts to $342 billion, almost as much as America's. And China is pursuing high technology as rapidly as it can. For that reason, some people think that China is America's most likely (some say certain) peer competitor for the coming years.
There is a great deal of disagreement among western analysts as to the size of China's GDP and the size of it military budget - estimates vary widely but no one gives much credence to China's official figures.
by Donald Sensing, 8/19/2003 07:23:00 AM. Permalink
|
Monday, August 18, 2003
Why Glenn Reynolds and I don't use MS Word
Found a post on Instapundit that says (entirely) I'LL GIVE UP MY WORDPERFECT when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. Here's another reason why. I gave up using Word in 1997 when I switched to WordPerfect, which I still use. WordPerfect is much less expensive, more intuitive and easier to use, in my opinion, anyway.
Now is turns out that Word buries user data inside the document that can be retrieved by others. He says he knows of a case in which someone found previous versions of an employment contract buried in the Word copy he was sent. Reading the hidden extras gave the person applying for the job a big advantage during negotiations. If you give or email a Word file to someone else, it's almost certain that most or all of earlier versions were retained in fragments of data called "metadata" in the file. A computer researcher tested 100,000 such files and discovered that every one of them contained hidden information.
Update: Syndicated columnist Austin Bay emails that WordPerfect "beats Word, hands down. I've used it for letters, non-fiction books, novels, magazine articles, internet updates (StrategyPage) and newspaper columns. Simply a superior word processor."
by Donald Sensing, 8/18/2003 06:44:00 PM. Permalink
|
Schwarzenegger: "laying the groundwork for a losing campaign"
Syndicated columnist and blogger Tom Donelson says that Arnold Schwarzenegger has the right diagnosis for what ails the Golden State, but the wrong prescription. With a government that is starting to resemble a third world banana Republic and governmental policy that includes excessive regulation and taxes, there are better place to do business. Even Midwest states like Iowa are business paradise compared to California and yet Schwarzenegger allies hinting that Californians are undertaxed, many Californians are not be given too many good reason to vote Arnold. The public knows very little of the economic plans of Arnold and his allies, especially his economic advisor, Warren Buffet. But what they have announced or leaked "is not much different what is going on in Sacramento" already.
Tom's advice to Arnold is basically, "Don't fire your actor's agent; you'll need him later to get work."
by Donald Sensing, 8/18/2003 05:30:00 PM. Permalink
|
The shape of things to come
A post and the comments at Winds of Change seem to show that the much-vaunted electronic networking of the US military is really just a crude prototype of what the not-too-distant future will bring.
Land forces are particularly on the cusp of a new revolution in military-information affairs. RKB comments Imagine soldiers wearing body armor with micro-actuators that can enhance personal strength, monitor biological systems and even selectively apply pressure to manage bleeding until a medic arrives. Imagine personal area, local area and theatre area wireless networks that link officers, ncos & enlisted to one another and to aerial and ground unmanned vehicles (robots), including things like antitank launchers that can fire on voice or radio command. Imagine weapons that allow the commanders to see what the soldier sees ... especially if s/he is out on recon or a special ops mission ... and make a go/no go decision based on that plus sensor data plus other info coming in from tiny robots in the air and in the enemy's towns .... Actually, it gets better than that. Natick Army Labs is actually working on invisibility uniforms - chameleonlike materials that auto-adapt to the patterns of their backgrounds. Think of James Bond's Aston Martin in Die Another Day, except the invisibility uniforms use light-sensitive microfabrics instead of cameras.
As the post accurately says, the military capabilities gap between the US and the rest of the world can do nothing but widen in the coming years.
by Donald Sensing, 8/18/2003 02:43:00 PM. Permalink
|
"Unshakeable faith in nice words"
Austin Bay writes with justifiable disgust for this "political theology."
by Donald Sensing, 8/18/2003 02:19:00 PM. Permalink
|
Portland, Maine, sued over "domestic partners" ordinance
Eleven Portland families have united to sue the city over its domestic-partners ordinance, claiming that the city law illegally redfines marriage. Maine statutes define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
The plaintiffs are "represented by The Center for Marriage Law, a national non-profit organization dedicated to defending marriage" as traditionally defined. They claim that the city's ordinance "essentially recognizes same-sex 'domestic partners' as married," but assert that state law trumps the city's ordinance.
by Donald Sensing, 8/18/2003 02:01:00 PM. Permalink
|
US Congressman in fatal accident
A freshman Republican Congressman from South Dakota who had served four terms as the state's governor drove his car into a motorcycle Saturday, leaving the cyclist dead.
Police said Rep. Bill Janklow, 63, ran an intersection in his cadillac and struck Randolph E. Scott, 53, who was not wearing a helmet. Scott died from massive trauma.
The police investigation is incomplete. No charges have yet been filed.
by Donald Sensing, 8/18/2003 01:52:00 PM. Permalink
|
Sunday, August 17, 2003
Recent posts
I normally don't post much on Sunday, but I did today. (Now I'm off to slumber.)
Mars is close! Reflections on "The War of the Worlds," Orson Welles, and the invasion set to rock music
Schwarzenegger falls to 2nd place in polls - Arnold has a long row to hoe; he is no shoo-in for governor
Har, har! - Some good cartoons over at American Realpolitik.
The free press in Iraq - Iraqi commentators feel sorry for dogface soldiers, or so they say
Jason Blair's legacy and Thomas Friedman - the veracity question rears it ugly head again
Louisiana and the bafflement of school desegregation - a link to Geitner Simmons' intriguing post.
by Donald Sensing, 8/17/2003 10:55:00 PM. Permalink
|
Mars is close!
Reflections on "The War of the Worlds," Orson Welles, and the invasion set to rock music
No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that human affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space. No one could have dreamed that we were being scrutinised, as someone with a microscope studies creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. Few men even considered the possibility of life on other planets. And yet, across the gulf of space minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely they drew their plans against us. So begins Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds, a 1976 rock rendition of HG Wells' 1898 sci-fi classic. More about Wayne's work later. The occasion herewith is the looming of Mars in the southeastern sky.
On Aug. 27, Mars will be closer to earth than it has been in 60,000 years, a mere 35 million miles. I hope to get to an observatory to see it. Mars was of course the source of the invaders in Wells' book. But we'll not see the tripod-mounted, bloodsucking invaders this year. Mars is bereft of such life.
Orson Welles turned HG's classic into a classic of his own. His carefully-scripted, 1938 radio broadcast of the story changed the venue from England to New Jersey and set it in that very day. He made it sound like it was "reality radio," the coverage of an actual invasion. You can hear sound excerpts from the broadcast here.
Welles' radio play scared the tar out of a lot of listeners who thought the invasion was real. People packed the roads, hid in cellars, loaded guns, even wrapped their heads in wet towels as protection from Martian poison gas, in an attempt to defend themselves against aliens, oblivious to the fact that they were acting out the role of the panic-stricken public that actually belonged in a radio play. Not unlike Stanislaw Lem's deluded populace, people were stuck in a kind of virtual world in which fiction was confused for fact. Shortly afterward, there were calls for a Congressional investigation and other such official action, but not long after that pundits, cartoonists and other commentators began to ridicule the people who had taken the radio show seriously. This show and Welles' 1941 movie, Citizen Kane, cemented Welles' reputation as a creative genius. Citizen Kane still heads the American Film Institutes' list of the 100 best movies of all time.
Citizen Kane was indeed a creative, cinematic tour de force. It told its story almost exclusively though flashbacks and Welles' use of light and darkness to achieve special effects was groundbreaking in its day. The movie is a mystery: What is the meaning of, "Rosebud," the last word of megarich publisher Charles Foster Kane as he died? Thje characters never learn; only the audience finds out the answer in the very last scene.
I took an all-day, one-month-long course in movies one year in college. The 12 of us watched three or four movies per day in the student union's theater, plus had to go to the student union's movie every night. The film library of Wake Forest University had a large number of rare titles, including many silent films. We watched so many silent films that we could all read lips quite well by month's end.
It was my misfortune to be assigned to preview Citizen Kane and write a presentation about it to be given to the class when we all watched the movie. I thought I presented scholarly, insightful, clever commentary into the meaning and symbolism of Rosebud, but my professor said, basically, that he had never heard so much claptrap in all his life. The class was pass-fail, so I survived on that basis and also because he really loved my analysis of a Czech surrealist film of 1937. I don't recall the name, but I remember the film made no sense whatsoever. There was practically no commentary on it in the library, either, and - take a breath - the internet didn't exist then. So my friend Bud Y. Zehr and I made stuff up as fast we could, and I turned it in. He loved it. Go figure.
But I digress. HG Wells' book was set to music and narration by English impresario Jeff Wayne in 1996 and released as a double album (vinyl, natch), entitled, "Jeff Waynes' Musical Version of The War of the Worlds." That was back when album covers were works of art in themselves (gosh, I miss them now) and Wayne's cover was striking:
This album, now available on CD, became a sort of cult classic. It didn't hurt that the narrator was one of the most celebrated English (okay, Welsh) actors ever, Richard Burton. And a lead singer was the Moody Blues' Justin Hayward. Julie Covington was the female lead singer.
This album is much less known than it deserves. It is a classic of mature rock. It cleaves closely to the book, using the book's text as the basis of its narrative sections. Burton's narration, the instrumentals and the singing are superb. The track that tells of the courageous, self-sacrificial fight of "the silent, gray, ironclad Thunderchild" is stirring. When Burton sadly tells when the Martians "raised their heat rays and melted the Thunderchild's valiant heart," you want to jump up and yell, "Nooo! You dirty, slimy, bloodsucking Martians!"
My roommate bought the album in Korea, where was stationed from 1977-1978. I bought the CD version just a few years ago; it was not for sale in America so I posted a query on usenet asking where I might find it. Soon I was directed to a website of a record shop in England. I made an online transaction and got the CD within a couple of weeks or so. If I remembered the name of the record shop I'd tell you, for its customer service was outstanding.
But the CD is now on sale at Amazon. I do recommend it highly.
by Donald Sensing, 8/17/2003 10:37:00 PM. Permalink
|
Schwarzenegger falls to 2nd place in polls
Arnold has a long row to hoe; he is no shoo-in for governor
The WaPo reports that a poll released yesterday shows Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger lagging Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz M. Bustamante by three points, 25 to 22 percent. All the other candidates were buried in single digits.
The poll also showed that Governor Gray Davis is more likely than ever to be recalled, as his support continues to drop.
The three-point gap between Schwarzenegger and Bustamante is not large; because margins of errors of such polls typically run between 3-4 percent, the race can be seen at this point as a dead heat.
I said before that as Oct. 7 gets closer, Californians will want to know what Arnold is going to do about the terrible state of the state's economy. Slogans won't work then. Arnold needs to have a real plan that makes sense to get the California's economy back on track.
He just signed the fantastically successful investor icon, Warren Buffet, onto his team, who said nice things about him. But Buffet said that California's property taxes are too low and Arnold was forced to disavow that (also here). Now Drudge reports that Arnold himself "has confided to advisers that he will not rule out raising taxes in California if he is elected governor" (link may vanish). "Look, Arnold will not, cannot say, 'Read my lips, no new taxes,'" a well-placed source explained from Los Angeles. "Our first priority will be to get the state back in to top fiscal condition, and everyone knows it takes revenue to achieve this." Although I have not tracked Arnold's campaign very closely, what I have seen and read indicates that he has not thought a lot of the issues through very well. He's at home acting, but his appearances before live cameras and inquiring reporters have been less than stellar.
My prediction -- Arnold's polling numbers won't impress between now and Oct. 7. Bustamante has a lot going for him that Arnold can't match - Hispanic name recognition and well-practiced political machinery.
A lot of Californians love Arnold and want to vote for him, but they want to be convinced that he brings more than celebrity to the governor's office before they will cast that ballot. Even a lot of normally starstruck Californians are going to think hard about whom to vote for month after next. The state's crisis is so deep that the voters will be more sober about the ballot than ever.
Time is running short. I never jumped on the bandwagon of certainty that Arnold will be the next guv, and now I say that it is Schwarzenegger who faces the uphill battle.
by Donald Sensing, 8/17/2003 09:11:00 PM. Permalink
|
Har, har!
Some good cartoons over at American Realpolitik.
by Donald Sensing, 8/17/2003 03:20:00 PM. Permalink
|
The free press in Iraq
Numerous commentators have observed that dozens, maybe hundreds, of new newspapers have sprung up in Iraq since the downfall of Saddam's regime. One such paper has a well-designed website, Iraq Today.
I haven't read much on the site yet, but an opinion piece caught my eye, "Lions Led by Donkeys," by Mustafa Alrawi. Alrawi reflects that "The occupation of Iraq, sorryÂ….the liberation of Iraq has now entered its fourth month," and that "A brave and proud army has been reduced to the role of a glorified police force." That's the US Army, in case you didn't get it. US soldiers are no longer liberators. It is not possible to liberate a people more than once on a single occasion. Are we expected to believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom is still ongoing? I doubt that. Last week, at CMOC's headquarters in the Jumoury Palace, a US army officer was proudly wearing a t-shirt bearing the slogan; "Operation Iraqi Freedom, mission accomplished". Why not? Saddam is gone and the Iraqis have their chance to begin again.
In honour of the triumphant liberation, what label can we now give to the US army in Iraq? How about, "the homeboys"? I can see the next news bulletinÂ…Last night, Saddam loyalists attacked a patrol of guys that really want to go home. Meanwhile, an extremely large group of guys that have no idea what their doing, but want to go home as much as the other guys, were raiding a row houses in Mosul, after receiving intelligence from one of Saddam's best friends that he may have driven past the street at some point in the last ten years. Alwari professes sympathy for the GIs and Marines who have to contend with daily patrols in the cities, getting sniped at. He heaps scorn upon Gen. Richard Sanchez and concludes that American troops are lions led by donkeys.
Well, color me skeptical. This cluck-clucking at the sorry plight of the poor American dogface soldier simply rings hollow. But it's not unitque to this writer at the paper. Zaid H. Fahmi also sings the tune. He interviewed a few soldiers of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Baghdad, all of whom miss their loved ones. That's prettmuchch all Fahmi's piece is, quotes of soldiers missing their loved onesafraidad they'll never see them again.
Well, yeah. But I wonder whether this kind of editorial attitude is a facade of coping with the Iraqis' own experiences under Saddam. By painting US troops as victims of uncaring, inept commanders they may be revealing a transferrence of their own feelings about the Iraqis' plight under Saddam.
That's about as Freudian as I want to get, so read the site yourself and see what you think.
by Donald Sensing, 8/17/2003 03:02:00 PM. Permalink
|
Jayson Blair's legacy and Thomas Friedman
The NYT's Thomas Friedman gets a lot of citation from the center and the right because his voice seems to be consistently one of reason and sanity emanating from the left-wing bastion called the New York Times. The Grey Lady has had some difficult times in recent months - Jayson Blair, a star reporter, was found to have flat-out falsified enormous amounts of copy. He got fired and later so did the Times' managing editor. Howell Raines.
Friedman has a piece in today's edition, filed from Baghdad, called, "Telling the Truth in Iraq." Glenn Reynolds favorably cites it, focusing on the part where Friedman points out that Iraqis are disillusioned with the rest of the Arab world: Many Iraqis today express real resentment for the other Arab regimes, and even toward the Palestinians, for how they let themselves be bought off by Saddam. They feel that Saddam used the Iraqi people's oil wealth to buy popularity for himself in the Arab street . . . And then these same Arab intellectuals and media gave Saddam a free pass to torture, repress and starve his own people. In other words, "Arabism," in the minds of many Iraqis, is the cloak that Saddam hid behind to imprison them for 35 years, and now that they can say that out loud, they are saying it But not so fast, says Calpundit, who says another part of Friedman's piece sounds pretty phony to him: "Iraq is going to be the Arab libido," a Lebanese aid worker in Baghdad said to me. "You know, when you have those naughty dreams that you can't tell anyone about and then suddenly you're on the couch talking about them — that's going to be Iraq." It's going to be where all the taboos that are not supposed to be spoken, get spoken. Indeed, they already are. Am I the only one who finds this an unlikely reaction from a Lebanese aid worker in Baghdad? That's a hellaciously strained metaphor for someone to come up with in casual conversation and, frankly, it doesn't even really make any sense.
In fact, what it really sounds like is the kind of tin ear metaphors that abound in Friedman's own writing. And so I'm forced to wonder: what did that Lebanese aid worker really say before his words got filtered through the Friedman metaphor processor? It sure doesn't sound like your typical man-in-the-street kind of conversation to me.
The we surf over to Mat Yglesias' blog who writes of taking a course co-taught by Friedman awhile back: I have my doubts too. When I was a Sophomore I took a course called Globalization and Its Discontents, co-taught by Friedman, Michael Sandel, and Stanley Hoffman. Several times during the run of the class I read Friedman columns in which he quoted anonymous people like "an Egyptian friend" or "one European" who were saying things that sounded suspiciously like things that students in the class had said during post-lecture discussion. It really began to lodge some serious doubts in my mind about the veracity of his reporting. The comments on both blogs are very informative also. On Calpundit a Lebanese-American woman wrote that her mother was a psychologist who practiced in Lebanon, and "most Lebanese wouldn't talk about being 'on a couch' discussing dreams. Other commenters point out that Friedman's quotes always seems to have a certain "Ivy-league" flair to them.
I happen to think that Friedman has written a lot more sensible stuff than not, but these allegations are interesting. Has Friedmann been embellishing or rewriting his interviews? Nothing in the posts or comments indicates that Friedman is guilty of Blair-type sins, which were truly egregious, but reading Friedman's piece makes me wonder why the "libido" quote, authentic or not, is even included. It just does not fit with the rest of the article. It's not connected to anything.
If anyone is more informed on Friedman's style than I, please leave a comment.
by Donald Sensing, 8/17/2003 02:18:00 PM. Permalink
|
Louisiana and the bafflement of school desegregation
Geitner Simmons, as always, has an excellent post on this topic - and on many others, so just start here and read on down.
by Donald Sensing, 8/17/2003 01:05:00 PM. Permalink
|
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Boy, did these guys get a bad mailing list
An email I received today: "Join the Socialist Party USA!" Let's me think . . . my answer would be, uh, No!
And another one right behind it: If the President has his way many of you, close to 8 million, including police, fire fighters, paramedics, nurses -most of you- will not receive the money you rely on to pay bills, get water, put gas in your cars, and put food on the table. Your paychecks are at stake!!! Your life and those of your children and co-workers are at stake!!! Like you, I always respond to emails that use lots of exclamation points!!!!
by Donald Sensing, 8/16/2003 12:38:00 PM. Permalink
|
If Women Ruled the World
How true, how true. For all men; for women only if they have a sense of humor.
by Donald Sensing, 8/16/2003 07:48:00 AM. Permalink
|
Friday, August 15, 2003
Go to this page and start reading
Lots of good stuff on the Braden Files, just go there and read.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 05:26:00 PM. Permalink
|
Report of Iraq conditions
The National Democratic Institute has released a 45-page .pdf report, "NDI Assessment Mission to Iraq, June 23 to July 6, 2003." An excerpt: NDI’s experience of Baghdad bears little resemblance to the Baghdad of news reports. The streets are busy with sidewalks jammed with pedestrians and traffic jams at every intersection. There are coalition checkpoints around certain buildings but car searches seem to be handled professionally by the soldiers – we have witnessed no tension even though we’ve been told that coalition troops are on high alert. Crime is increasing and several Iraqis have told us of car thefts, for example, but it seems like certain areas of the city are much worse than others. Outside our hotel, for example, which is in a quiet residential neighborhood, hotel guests sip cold beer in the evening while groups of Iraqi men and boys play dominoes. Electricity fails two or three times a day but many buildings seem to have back-up generators. . . . Most Iraqis we spoke to concede that conditions are improving with electricity, water and food supplies returning to normal. Expectations for the Coalition Provisional Authority remain high with many people convinced that “America can do anything.” Imagine that: conditions on the ground bear "little resemblance to the Baghdad of news reports." Who'd a thunk it? Tip: Apostablog.)
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 05:04:00 PM. Permalink
|
No evacuation plan?
Vanderleun says that the blackout shows that New York does not have one, and that if the city is attacked again with deadly effect by terrorists, "somewhere north of five thousand" people will die in the evacuation itself.
Rather than say that NYC does not have such a plan, I would say that they do, but it rests upon a false premise: that a few million people can be managed when a mass psychosis takes hold. If there is a reason for mass evac, the people are going to go by hook or crook, any way they can.
I don't agree with Vanderleun that "fear, panic, riot" will grip the citizenry if there is an attack and the evac order is given. I think New Yorkers are tougher than that. A lot of them will resist evacuation precisely because they are tough and are not about to let some punk terrorist drive them away. Yeah, I know that terrorists with explosives or maybe some kind of WMD are not punks, but tell that to a New Yorker whose hackles are up.
The ones who do evacuate will be fairly orderly and help one another out. New Yorkers identify with each other as New Yorkers more than the people of any other city in America identify with one another. That will see them through.
BTW, Vanderleun does fix the blame for the blackout. It is the fault of "the awful NO-MEN of our society." I've got to say that this is an excellent point; go read.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 04:49:00 PM. Permalink
|
The Great Atlantic Divide
Ralph Peters has a readable piece about the difference between America and Europe in the New York Post. . . . there are serious - and hardening - differences between Americans, who embrace the future, and the French or Germans or Belgians who cling to the past. . . .
For Europeans - excluding the Brits . . . - "freedom" means freedom from things: from social and economic risk, from workplace insecurity and personal responsibility, from too much competition in the marketplace or too much scrutiny of governing elites. . . . The European social contract amounts to this: We will not let the talented rise too high, and we will not let the lazy fall too low. "Equality" doesn't mean equal opportunities, but equal limitations. Here's an interesting point: The Europeans with whom we must deal today are those whose ancestors lacked the courage to pack their bags and board the ships in Hamburg or Antwerp or Danzig. They chose a miserable security over hope that carried risks. Makes you think. But there are other differences between the American character and the European.
Religion is one of the great rifts between America and Europe. In "old Europe," church attendance is well under 10 percent per Sunday, many places under five percent. The UK's rate is slightly better, but still far below America's rate. Evangelicalism is practically unknown in Europe, although it is robust and growing in America - and the Third World, too. As I have posted about earlier today, religion remains very strong in America.
The other great divide between America and Europe is the issue of sovereignty. Pete DuPont last year quoted National Review's John O'Sullivan: The American (and, to a lesser but still vital extent, the British) state is the creature of society. Government exists to serve the various interests that make up society . . . and to oversee the reconciliation of their differences. It does not seek to order or shape society in accord with some grand plan. . . . By contrast the major European states, in particular France, see themselves as the source of all legitimate power and thus as the shapers of society. Governments seek to prescribe social and economic development . . . in accordance with some kind of plan. This is close to what Peters says, and Peters would agree no doubt, but it is not quite the same. The real difference between the American and European political philosophy is the answer to this question: where does national sovereignty lie?
Sovereignty means the source of authority in the state. In Europe, state authority lies in the state apparatus, in other words, the government. France's Louis XIV summed this view up perfectly when he said, " L'etat c'est moi," the state is me. The continental Europeans have never outgrown this view. Whether working class or elites, they alike see the government as the source of political legitmacy. The people enjoy only the rights that the government grants them.
Americans, on the other hand, see the people as the only legitmate source of political legitimacy. In the United States, state authority lies in the voters. Hence, we have in our political lexicon the phrase, "popular sovereignty," popular here meaning not well-liked, but of the population. In America, the state apparatus grants no rights at all to the people because the government has no rights to grant. All rights reside in the people to begin with. The American founders understood that human rights are simply a fact of human existence; human beings are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," as the Declaration of Independence puts it.
Therefore, in the American system, the people grant powers to the government, but no rights. Yet, sadly, I still hear in conversation with my fellow Americans statements such as, "The First Amendment gives us free speech." In fact, the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole give or grant no rights at all: all rights automatically are always held by the people in the first place. The Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the power of the government -- to make sure that government apparatchiks didn't step on the rights of the people.
Update: Another problem Europe has dealt itself with its socialism is that its population is rapidly aging, which threatens to bankrupt socialist governments because governments fund almost all the pensions. And Europeans stop working much earlier than Americans do, or Asians as well.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 04:14:00 PM. Permalink
|
Order or chaos?
Alpha Patriot writes of an interesting point of the northeast blackout: So while things go smoothly for the US (including an incredible calm that blanketed New York), our northern neighbors were not so lucky. "Serious looting" was taking place in Canada's capital city, Ottawa, and citizens were left wondering where their leaders were in Toronto. In the next post down he writes of another serious problem - the efforts by gun-hostile people in Tennessee to shut down public and private shooting ranges. I live in Tennessee and persoanlly know a range operator who is expending great time and resources fending off lawsuits against his range. He and the business get sued for noise pollution, ground and water pollution, reckless endangerment, you name it. It's happening here and almost everywhere else. So if you support Second Amendment rights, think about taking a role in fighting this kind of back door attempt to prevent you from using your guns lawfully.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 03:50:00 PM. Permalink
|
The Virgin Birth
Nicholas Kristof brought it up in today's New York Times. I just remembered that I wrote a long post about this topic on my no-longer-active blog, The Religious News. Excerpt: There is no union between God and Mary, either in Matthew or in Luke. Jesus comes to exist as an unborn child simply because God wills it, not from anything God does to Mary. This distinction is perhaps a crucial one for understanding who Jesus was.
Let's recall, for example, the story of the famous figure of Greek mythology, Achilles. Achilles was the son of a human father and a divine mother. Achilles' portrayal in the Iliad shows that he was half human, half divine. He had much of the power and invulnerability of the gods, but the temper and tempestuousness of ordinary people. He led his men with godly courage, but carried out unforgivably harsh vengeance on the Trojan prince, Hector.
Throughout the story, the tragedy of Achilles unfolded precisely because he was neither wholly god nor wholly human. He was half and half, and neither half was at peace with the other. His godly side strove for the higher virtues, but was dragged down by his humanity, and his divinity perverted his humanity. Thus, the story of the semi-divine, semi-human Achilles is one of tragedy.
Jesus is nowhere presented as a hybrid product of divinity and humanity. Jesus is not a half-and-half person. Jesus is affirmed as fully human and fully God, and his story ends not in tragedy at the cross but in victory at the empty tomb. Jesus was not a demigod with a human side corrupting his divine being. Neither was Jesus simply a human being with an exceptionally rich spiritual life. Jesus was Immanuel, fully God, fully with us, fully human. Jesus is Son of God because of the special role he has in God's saving plan, not because of his birth to a virgin. Mary's biological condition is not the source of our salvation. Affirming the virgin birth does not get us into heaven and denying it does not keep us out.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 01:04:00 PM. Permalink
|
Where were you when the lights went out?
Michael Totten has impressive shots of eastern cities in darkness. There's something you don't see every day. Update: Apostablog has some, too.
And Michael Williams reports that Baghdadis are smirking at America's electrical misfortunes.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 12:39:00 PM. Permalink
|
Bush's re-electability
James Joyner has a good rollup.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 12:35:00 PM. Permalink
|
Nick Kristof - religious bigot?
Nicholas Kristof writes in today's New York Times that compared to its peer-group countries, America is a highly religious nation, which is true. Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea.
Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. The article is not especially well-written, but it seems that Kristof is worried that Americans' faith is becoming more "mystical" and less "intellectual." The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points in the latest poll. He then sets about trying to show why believing that Jesus was born to a virgin mother is unjustifiable. Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians. (Hey, Nick, I can top that - I know a "U.S. non-Christian" who sincerely believes that Jesus was raised from the dead! As the apostle James wrote, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder.")
Anyway, Bill Hobbs says that Kristof is a bigot who. . . denigrates people for believing in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, suggesting they aren't using their brain, and compares them to Islamic fundamentalist mullahs. One thing that Kristof should bear in mind that everyone lies about sex and religion when speaking to pollsters. A practicing psychologist once explained it to me this way: there are certain topics for which people describe themselves, or their own beliefs, in a highly idealized way. An example: I had to undergo a half-day battery of psych evaluation before I was ordained. The psychologist later told me that I was unusual (no snide comments, please!) because I didn't answer in an idealized way. When asked whether I ever felt like swearing, for example, I said yes. But almost every other ordination candidate said no.
Now, 99 percent of the people on earth at least feel like swearing some time or another, but everyone knows that ministers aren't ever supposed to swear, so for what was an employment test, almost all the candidates said no. I suspect that kind of effect is evident in the religious survey Kristof cites: I think of myself as religious, a respondent thinks, and religious people think these kind of things, so that's how I'll answer. Myself, I think that the figure of 91 percent of American Christians believing in the virgin birth is just laughably high.
So Kristof is less bigoted, in my view, than he is credulous and uncritical. Even so, the divide he refers to is real and was the concern of my Master of Divinity thesis (link will not work until its New York-based server is back online - power outage, ya know): I see two world views among parishioners. There is the religious world view, reserved mostly for use during Sunday school and worship. This world view includes miraculous happenings, angels and demons, God and Satan. Sin results in penalty, virtue in reward, and God dispenses both. God's power is understood as absolute and unfettered. The theoretical foundation of this religious world view is classical theism.
The other world view, scientific materialism, is equally present among parishioners. It is used outside church. This world view is bereft of supernatural beings or events. God is not so much absent as unnecessary. Cause and effect are mechanistic: physical event "A" results in physical event "B." Penalties and rewards occur in a different scheme. Lung cancer results from smoking, not sin. Wealth comes not from righteousness, but from prudent manipulation of resources in a comprehensible economic system.
These world views are not readily compatible. The dissonance between them is reflected in the most important aspects of church life. How a congregation grapples with them affects its growth or decline, its ministries of compassion and justice, and its retention of youth, to name just three examples. The problem is made more acute by the fact that scientific materialism is useful every day of the week, while theism "works" almost exclusively on Sunday mornings.
A scientific world view offers a powerful way to explain and predict events for people's daily routines in business, health care, transportation and even recreation. Scientific methodology is central to almost every livelihood of church members, from farming to construction to business marketing. It works just as well for the nonreligious as the religious.
Classical theism, though absent from the routines of life Monday through Saturday, remains strong on Sunday mornings within liturgy and hymnody. While many persons often find a great deal of personal comfort in theism, it no longer powerfully addresses ultimate concerns of society at large, which cry out for divine love and justice to affect its social and political orders. If we remain theologically frozen in classical theism, says Bishop Kenneth Carder, "the church will answer questions nobody is asking and become a monument to a static and distant God" and will "maintain its unblemished record of having nothing to do with anything important" (Langdon Gilkey) in people's daily lives or society at large.
Methodist pastors often seem as uneasy with this world-view dissonance as laity. I subscribe to a UMC-sponsored e-mail listserve in which pastors post sermons for comment. Sermons emphasizing the Bible's ethical teachings are much more numerous than those resonating classical theistic themes. Even at Easter, the day of all days to affirm God's power, the resurrection seems to have less to do with the power of God than the moral obligations Christ places on us. I agree with John Hick's observation that usually, "statements about God, instead of referring to a transcendent divine Being, are expressions of ethical policies" of Christian living.
We preserve the trappings of theism in liturgy and hymnody, but we tacitly surrender them in preaching and teaching. Then we wonder why our parishioners say they are frustrated in connecting their religious faith with life at large. However, back to whether Kristof is a religious bigot or not. I don't think that this one piece, by itself, supports that characterization. The only thing that gives me pause is Kristof's claim, "I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs." Well, yes, actually, he is. So maybe he is bigoted after all. You decide.
The topic of the virgin birth itself is fascinating, about which I'll post later.
Update: Bill now points the way to NRO's Rod Dreher's comment that Kristof. . . perceives that the country is undergoing a spiritual revival, but he despairs that it's not of the mainline Protestant-liberal Catholic kind. He's afraid those of us who actually believe in the historical Christian faith will turn into Talibaptists. It never fails to amaze me how otherwise intelligent, sophisticated and worldly people fail to perceive the vast qualitative gulf between conservative Christians and Islamofascists. A good observation, I think. As I have pointed out before, the theologically conservative churches are growing and the liberal denominations are shrinking in America. Perhaps Kristof should ponder why.
Update: Michael Williams says I miss the boat here.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 11:59:00 AM. Permalink
|
The post-Shinseki Army - off with their heads!
Complaints, no solutions, again
Hackery at its best (or worst, I guess) is Jed Babbin's essay at NRO, Purge of the Princelings? It's plain that Babbin really, really doesn't like recently-retired Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, whom he characterizes as a "Clinton general," a protege of Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and an unimaginative general whose thinking was mired in the Cold War. And a pox on all the other generals, too!
Babbin is over the top in his vituperation of Shinseki, for whom I cheerlead not, but who should be evaluated fairly. Shinseki was right on some things and wrong on others, and the Rumsfeld empire is learning to its dismay that it should have listened to him on how many troops it would take to pacify Iraq after the end of conventional operations.
"Conventional" is a word that Babbin seems not to know. He excoriates Shinseki for being tied to Cold War thinking, but doesn't really explain what he means, nor does he offer an alternative except to hurrah the appointment of a retired Green Beret general as Shinseki's successor.
The fact is that the Army that blitzed out of Kuwait and into Baghdad in only a month was a Cold-War-legacy Army - heavy with Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters, all rooted in development that started in the 1970s. If our country ever goes to war with North Korea or even Iran, that is also exactly the kind of Army that will be needed again.
The critics' chorus, including Babbin, has long slandered the Army for being too heavy, literally. An Abrams tank ready for battle weighs about 70 tons, Bradleys weigh about 50. Those facts drove the development of the new Stryker armored gun system. Another factor was the obsolescence and overhead costs of the Vietnam-era M551 Sheridan armored vehicle, which only the 82d Airborne Division used as its armored punch. An infantry-carrier version of the Stryker is also being developed.
The Strykers form the core of new Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), units smaller than a division that can be deployed and supported much quicker and easier. They are roughly the Army's equivalent of the vaunted Marine Expeditionary Units, except the BCTs move by air and the MEUs by ships. There is no way that the BCT can be characterized as a Cold War kind of force. It is exactly the kind of unit, equipped with the kind of weapons, that the critics' chorus called for years ago. Yet what does Babbin say? . . . the "Stryker" interim armored vehicle. Stryker - a 38,000-pound machine incapable of fighting a war for too many reasons to list here - is a $12 billion tribute to the U.N. peacekeeping missions of the 1990s. . . . It should be cancelled. "Too many reasons to list here" is Babbin-speak for, "I'll use bluster instead of facts." As Col. Charles Betack, Systems Manager for the Stryker and Bradley, said, "The largest obstacle the Stryker faces is bad press and people being misinformed. The vehicle itself is an outstanding system."
Babbin is all over the map in his piece: Shinseki was too political, he should have been fired long ago. So should have all his cronies, for being to politically correct. (Heck, they were all Clinton appointees, which alone is sufficient to cast them into outer darkness!) The Army won't cooperate with other services in "jointness," criticismsm so spectacularly ignorant as that it beggars description. The Army is the least independent of all the services - it can't get anywhere without the Air Force and the Navy.
Every service has its "old guard" who aren't adapting to new realities very well and sliding them into retirement is periodically necessary. Babbin heaps scorn and venom on certain Army officers by name for being too political and unwilling to adapt - but what do they fail to measure up to? Why, Babbin's criteria, that don't seem very well informed. And of course, Babbin writes purely from altruism; there's certainly no residual anti-Clintonism or other ideology in evidence, is there?
Babbin has complaints, but no solutions. He doesn't like what he sees, but envisions nothing else. Why listen to him? He is rapidly becoming the David Hackworth of former civilian defense officials, and that's no compliment.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 11:07:00 AM. Permalink
|
How to determine whether Blaster is in your computer
Comcast.net has posted excellent, illustrated instructions. One symptom is "continual" rebooting.
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 09:55:00 AM. Permalink
|
A soldier speaks from Kuwait
Richard Heddleson alerted me to a nearly-new blog called Soldier's Paradise, written by an Army noncommissioned officer serving in Kuwait. Richard wondered whether I had any words of wisdom for "Thor" relevant to a post where he wrote of attending worship services four weeks in a row, after hardly going to church ever for many years. Thor wrote last Monday, Yesterday I went to church. It was only the fourth time I have been to church out here, but it was four in a row so I am feeling pretty good about myself. I have only been about 14 or 15 times in the last 14 years not a very good record admittedly. I really enjoy going and I always feel good afterwards. Some how though there is always some reason why “I can’t go this week.” All the more reason why I just need to get in the habit of going.
What I remember of church meetings back home are large congregations of smiling people. Here it is very different. We have averaged about seven people each week since I have been going, and there aren’t as many smiles. It is very strange seeing people at church in DCUs (Desert Cammoflage Uniforms) and PTs (Physical Training uniforms) Yesterday one of the soldiers even had to bring her weapon. I couldn’t help feeling strange about there being a weapon in church even though our “church” is a circus tent with wooden makeshift benches and pulpit. It still feels really good to attend.
I volunteered to talk next week as being very few of us it is not fair to let the burden hang on any one member’s shoulders. I am thouroughly freaked out. Like I said I have not attended church services on any kind of regular basis since I was fourteen and I really have no idea what to talk about. I will make due and try to be interesting. We’ll see. So I emailed him the text of my Veterans Day sermon from a few years ago.
Drop by his site and email him your gratitude and words of support!
by Donald Sensing, 8/15/2003 09:53:00 AM. Permalink
|
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Whipped again
Again today I was working from 6.30 a.m. until about now. There is a lot of good stuff in the links in my left-hand column. But I'll log back on tomorrow - Friday is my main writing day for my vocation, so I try to keep it clear.
by Donald Sensing, 8/14/2003 08:58:00 PM. Permalink
|
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Kerry photographed indulging in "alternative lifestyle!"
Presidential aspirant John Kerry was photographed Monday doing the unthinkable: visiting Philadelphia and eating a Philly Cheese Steak sandwich with Swiss cheese. "It will doom his candidacy in Philadelphia," predicted Craig LaBan, food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which broke the Sandwich Scandal. After all, Philly cheesesteaks come with Cheez Whiz, or occasionally American or provolone. But Swiss cheese? "In Philadelphia, that's an alternative lifestyle," LaBan explained. John, we hardly knew ye. But it looks like the end of the presidential road for you.
by Donald Sensing, 8/13/2003 11:06:00 PM. Permalink
|
"Less than meets the eye" in antiaircraft missile smuggling arrest
ABC News says the arrest of a Briton in New Jersey for selling a high-power, self-guided, shoulder-guided antiaircraft missile to an undercover agent is not the sensation the government makes it out to be. In fact, it may be a lot less.
by Donald Sensing, 8/13/2003 10:54:00 PM. Permalink
|
Ahnuld signs Warren Buffet aboard campaign
The most successful investor in the world, Warren Buffet, has joined Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign as his economic advisor. "I have known Arnold for years and know he'll be a great governor," said Buffett, one of America's best-known and most respected investors. "It is critical to the rest of the nation that California's economic crisis be solved, and I think Arnold will get that job done." Well, how 'bout that?
by Donald Sensing, 8/13/2003 10:50:00 PM. Permalink
|
How to serve your country
Are you:
too old to join the armed forces?
retired from the military and can't go back on active duty?
a veteran - or not?
at least 17 and not more than 100 years old?
a U.S. citizen?
Then you can become a member of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary. It boasts more than 35,000 members from all walks of life who receive special training so that they may be a functional part of Coast Guard Forces. Auxiliarists assist the Coast Guard in non-law enforcement programs such as public education, vessel safety checks, safety patrols, search and rescue, maritime security and environmental protection and Coast Guard Academy introduction programs for youth. Auxiliarists volunteer more than 2 million hours annually to benefit other boaters and their families. I am not a member, but I just learned of this opportunity. I may well check it out - even in landlocked Tennessee, my zip code on the search field of the web site turns up several local "flotillas," as the CG Aux units are called. There's even an International Affairs Directorate.
The auxiliary was formed by Congress in 1939. By performing routine patrols, boating inspections, safety enforcement and search and rescue, CG Aux members free a regular Coast Guard member to do other things, such as homeland security.
by Donald Sensing, 8/13/2003 10:43:00 PM. Permalink
|
Gripe, gripe, gripe - Krugman and Hackworth
Geitner Simmons has posted a lot of impressive stuff lately, which is de rigeur for him, so I urge you to surf on over and start reading.
He also sent me the text of a Krugman column quoting retired Col. David Hackworth (oh, please!) about MREs and supply matters. Geitner wondered what I thought of it. To which I reply, read this post about Krugman's column by former Army officer Phil Carter. Phil says, "Krugman's column adds little to the debate over America's endeavor in Iraq." Yep.
I once was on a local radio show with David Hackworth not long after the campaign in Afghanistan began. We were both being interviewed by phone, so I did not meet him. It went well and we agreed about the main points of the discussion, that we should not use atomic weapons in Afghanistan.
But, as Phil points out, Hack has an agenda. I heard him on another radio interview within the past month, actually saying the Army should throw away its M16-series rifles and reissue M1 Garands to the troops! It gets better: he also said the M1 Abrams tank is too complex, heavy, electronic, etc., and the Army should retire it and bring back the World War II Sherman tank.
Yes, he actually said it. I heard it. And he didn't sound like he was kidding to me.
Another bone I have to pick with his PR machine is the way he was described for several years as "the most highly decorated living soldier." It was never true. First of all, he does not hold the Medal of Honor, and almost any soldier will tell you that a whole chestful of other medals does not equal the MOH alone.
Consider another officer whom I worked for at the Pentagon, still on active duty while Hack was telling everyone he was the highest decorated soldier. The officer's name was Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady. As a major in Vietnam, Brady earned the Medal of Honor for piloting a day-long series of medevac flights (read his citation). Several other senior officers, combat-decorated themselves in the war, told me that they were in awe of Brady's feats because his deeds continued for a whole day; he didn't earn the MOH for a single spasm of heroism.
That's not all. Brady was also awarded the Distinguished Service Cross; two Distinguished Service Medals; the Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit; six Distinguished Flying Crosses; two Bronze Stars, one for valor; the Purple Heart; and fifty-three Air Medals, one for valor.
David Hackworth's own web site lists his awards and decorations. They are certainly nothing to sneeze at, including multiple awards of the Silver Star and a DFC.
Disclaimer: I was awarded none of the above. Both men are leagues above me in combat experience and just recognition thereof. But it grated a lot of officers a lot to hear the Hackworth PR machine ceaselessly inform everyone that he was the highest-decorated living soldier when simply counting ribbons is not the real measure. On radio and TV, he is entertaining, but that's pretty much it.
by Donald Sensing, 8/13/2003 08:48:00 PM. Permalink
|
Blaster virus threat is real
I visited a man who owns a computer business today, and he emphasized that if I had not taken steps to protect my computer from the MSBLAST virus, or "Blaster" virus, I should do so immediately.
Blaster does not need email to enter your system; it does not require you to run an executable to infect your system.
The Microsoft technical bulletin is here.
Norton Anti-Virus' details page and threat explanation is here.
The virus threatens only Windows 2000 and Windows XP operating systems. Microsoft's update and download page for its OSes is here. Also d/l and install an anti-virus update for your machine.
by Donald Sensing, 8/13/2003 07:17:00 PM. Permalink
|
Well, we aren't declining yet!
Armed Liberal cites and responds to a probably-pseudonymous writer named Spengler, who maintains that the US is going to lose the fight against Muslim terrorism. It's another "demographics is destiny" arguments and offers no new thoughts. In fact, it offers a lot of blinded thinking.
For example, Spengler says that "a billion" Muslims are arrayed against us. Well, no. In fact, very few non-Arab Muslims are trying to destroy the West, and the non-Arab Muslims that are have been radicalized by Wahabbist Arabism. Our fight is not against Islam itself, but against Arab Islamist radicals. I have pointed this out so often, as have others, that I don't even cite it any more.
As I explained in my PDF-format opus, The Soil of Arab Terrorism, For just as the reactionary Islamists of the Arab world feel their day is arriving, the fact is that demographically, worldwide Islam is not gaining significant numbers of new converts.
In contrast, Christianity is spreading rapidly in the Third World, both by birth-rate and by conversion. Islamism does not find root there, except where Arab Islamists have directly worked to export it. That would seem to belie Spengler's erroneous contention that no ideological-religious challenge is being made to radical Islam. It's true that American Christianity is not seriously challenging Islam anywhere, so emasculated has American Christian practice become, but Islam "at the margins," as Ralph Peters once put it, is being vigorously challenged, religiously, by third-world churches. In Sudan, for example, the harshness and cruelty of strict sharia Islam is driving people to Christianity, which is growing there despite the fact that they shoot Christians in Sudan.
Furthermore, the overtly-stated plan of the Bush administration to "work with those in the Middle East who seek progress toward greater democracy, tolerance, prosperity and freedom" is also a ideological-political challenge of a very deep order.
Radical Islam (meaning Arab Islam) is actually surrounded by ideological and political challengers: in heavily-Christianized Africa, mostly Hindu India, Europe (most places) and of course, America.
Furthermore, Islamists lack allies among Muslims in Western countries. Except for immigrant ghettos of Arab emigres in Europe, Muslim westerners have turned their back on Arabist Islamism and are trying to forge a westernized version of Islam. Not only that, but in non-Arab Muslim countries there is considerable resistance by many Muslims to attempts by radicals to imitate Arab Islam - in Indonesia, for example, where liberal Muslims are resisting institution of Islamic law over civil matters.
"Spengler's" essay is yet another " decline of the West" tome that has little to commend for it.
by Donald Sensing, 8/13/2003 08:17:00 AM. Permalink
|
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Whipped
I pushed off this morning before 6.30, drove 300 miles east, stayed there until late afternoon on pastoral business, then drove home. Hence no blogging today. And none tongiht, either. See ya manana.
by Donald Sensing, 8/12/2003 09:00:00 PM. Permalink
|
Monday, August 11, 2003
False rape accusations
The Kobe Bryant case has made some folks look more critically at the data about rape accusation. Glenn Reynolds links to Jonna Spillbor's article about false accusations. I wrote about my personal experiences with false rape accusations here.
by Donald Sensing, 8/11/2003 10:37:00 PM. Permalink
|
The latest trend . . .
. . . in blogging seems to be posting entries denying that one's blog has pictures of Arianna Huffington nude. Or Kobe Bryant's accuser, nude or not.
Apparently it started with this comic strip that showed a blogger mentioning things like Pamela Anderson pictures. But it didn't talk about Arnold Schwarzenegger nude, even though he had some embarrassing poses when he was young. His wife, Maria Shriver, certainly did not.
I don't get it. I mean, what's the point? You'd think they were trying to spook Google or something.
Nah.
by Donald Sensing, 8/11/2003 10:19:00 PM. Permalink
|
Oh, great, this is all I need
I am Yoda. "A venerated sage with vast power and knowledge, you gently guide forces around you while serving as a champion of the light." Yah, shoor, whatever. . . . (via James Joyner.)
by Donald Sensing, 8/11/2003 09:59:00 PM. Permalink
|
How hot is it?
Plenty blasting hot! But not as hot as where these Americans live and work.
by Donald Sensing, 8/11/2003 07:46:00 PM. Permalink
|
I am now officially an "online journalist"
Information audiences are no longer passive and never will be again
And so are you if you blog, this according to Online Journalism Review of USC Annenberg. A new report on participatory journalism by New Directions for News concludes: "Journalism finds itself at a rare moment in history where ... its hegemony as gatekeeper of the news is threatened by not just new technology and competitors but, potentially, by the audience it serves.
"Armed with easy-to-use Web publishing tools, always-on connections and increasingly powerful mobile devices, the online audience has the means to become an active participant in the creation and dissemination of news and information." The key, says the article, is reader participation, which sets OLJ (Online Journalism) apart from ordinary print journalism. More and more, spot news will be covered by ordinary folks who happen to be there as it happens; the article cites a case in Japan where initial coverage of a wreck was originated by a trucker with video-enabled cell phone, who wirelessly transmitted moving pictures of the scene to a traditional media outlet, which broadcasted the sequence.
Jeff Jarvis is quoted as saying that when big news happens, "the odds are better and better that witnesses who are there will now have the tools to capture and share images and news."
A lot of online reporting is "thin," meaning that its audience or the focus of coverage is limited. Internet-based media can do this economically while traditional media cannot. Thin media will rise sharply, experts say.
Dan Gillmor, both a blogger and a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, concludes that although the direction this trend will go most strongly can't be predicted yet, The only thing certain is that we'll never return to the days when people are treated as passive vessels for content delivered by big media through one-way pipes -- no matter how disruptive these changes may be for traditional media. Whether bloggers are journalists will also continue to be a matter of disputation. Many (perhaps most) of the oldline media scoff at the notion. I wrote a fairly in-depth inquiry into that back in February. (hat tip: 2 Hour Lunch)
by Donald Sensing, 8/11/2003 03:26:00 PM. Permalink
|
Seabiscuit on NPT or NFL on ESPN?
Football takes a back seat tonight; my review of Seabiscuit, the movie
An hour after the NFL preseason game begins on ESPN tonight, National Public TV will broadcast a documentary about the legendary race horse, Seabiscuit.
Now, I love Monday Night Football, even on ESPN in preseason. But I just saw the Hollywood movie about Seabiscuit last week, called, duh, Seabiscuit.
It is the best movie I have seen this year.
After I saw the movie, I read the book, a four-year project written by Laura Hillenbrand. Did you know that in 1938, stories about Seabiscuit totaled more column inches of print than President Roosevelt? Or Adolf Hitler? Or any other figure, human or not, in the entire world? "Legendary" is not an inapt word for the horse.
Seabiscuit's match against Triple Crown winner War Admiral - there were no other horses running - is faithfully presented in the movie, although the movie's buildup to it takes some liberties with the book's historical account. During the race, President Roosevelt suspended a cabinet meeting to listen on radio. Businesses closed to listen. The race is still considered to be the greatest horse race in history.
The race was filmed for newsreels, and I expect to see the real race on NPT tonight. Definitely I want to see it.
I didn't give a hang about horse racing before I read the book. It's a fascinating topic. I'll never be a bettor, but I now understand the attraction of the "Sport of Kings" to those who go to the track. Neither did I appreciate how very dangerous the sport is for the jockeys; some have died on the track. Think of an entire Nascar race run four-wide at the Indy 500 track, the narrowest track Nascar runs on. Seabiscuit's principal jockey, Red Pollard, was horribly injured more than once (the movie shows only one time, but there were many others) and was near death several times. (But never while riding the Biscuit.)
The horse's story is amazing, along with that of Charles Howard, owner and Tom Smith, trainer. The movie is deservedly being touted already as an Oscar contender. The book is better.
Hillenbrand's book is on the left, DVD of PBS's documentary about Seabiscuit is on the right.
. . . . . . .
Update: Roger Ebert, movie critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, observes that the movie chokes people up "not because of sadness, but because of goodness and courage." And it does have that a-plenty, and it's true. The ending is perfect, made even better because it really happened. (However, the movie ends before Hillenbrand's book does, and unfortunately the real endings for some of the characters are not happy ones. But they occurred many years after the event that ended the movie.)
Allan Barra takes a contrary view of Seabiscuit (the horse, not the movie) and concludes that Seabuiscit's legacy is overrated. . . . given his ancestors, the case could be made that Seabiscuit was as much an underachiever as an underdog. His granddad was Man o' War, probably the greatest racehorse of all. His father, Hard Tack, broke numerous speed records (though his temperament was so difficult that he was quickly put out to stud). His mom was Swing On, who, though she was not much of a racehorse herself, was descended from the legendary Whisk Broom II. He also says that the news hype about the horse was overstated by Hillenbrand. Interestingly, Seabiscuit and War Admiral were both grandsired by Man O' War; their race was a race between cousins.
Seabiscuit was a late bloomer because he was, incredibly, a lazy horse. He loved to sleep and eat. His fierce competitiveness and amazing speed did not appear until Charles Howard bought him for a paltry $8,000 and Tom Smith began training him. The prior owner had used him as a pace horse for other thoroughbreds; he had never been allowed just to run flat out.
At age seven, in 1940, when every other horse that age had been peforming stud duties for several years, Seabiscuit won the Santa Anita Handicap, winning $100,000, a race that today pays the winner $1 million. In a real way, Seabiscuit made Santa Anita's track: "Because of his incredible national following he brought great national attention to this racetrack," Santa Anita spokesman Stuart Zanville said. "Today, here we are 63 years later and this same race horse is having a significant impact on our sport." One of the reasons I like the movie is because it is not a special effects movie. It just tells a story. The camera work is superb, especially during the racing scenes. If you have ever wondered what its's like to be the on a horse going 40 mph around the final turn into the home stretch, this movie will let you know. Also, even though the movie is about a horse, it is not a horse movie. The human characters dominate throughout.
It is a "feel-good" movie, yes, but dadgummit, there's nothing wrong with that. I have always thought that any movie not worth seeing twice wasn't really worth seeing once. I want to see Seabiscuit again. 'Nuff said.
by Donald Sensing, 8/11/2003 01:38:00 PM. Permalink
|
A reason to drink Starbucks coffee
The coffee chain gets a lot of grief from anti-globos, but I think tomorrow morning I will drive out of my way to get a cup on the way to the church. Here's why.
by Donald Sensing, 8/11/2003 01:17:00 PM. Permalink
|
Sunday, August 10, 2003
"Think what they will try with Islam"
Cultural and religious imperalism at play?
Muslim Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal observes the crisis in the worldwide Anglican communion and concludes that the election of the homosexual Gene Robinson to bishop in the Episcopal Church of the USA is another example of western imperialism. Interestingly, the majority of those who are against the election of the gay bishop who are for the most part non-Western, while those who are arguing in favor are largely Westerners. . . .
Here is another example, it seems to me, of how Westerners give themselves the right to change even Christian scriptures to suit their whims, and in the process trample all over the religious sensibilities of other Christians who are unfortunate enough not to have been born in the West. . . .
If this is how they deal with their own religion, think what they will try (are already trying) to do with other religions such as Islam. I wrote in my essay, The Soil Of Arab Terrorism, There are many points of contention and conflict between Arab Islam and the West, but the chief religious contention is not really between Islamic Arabs and Christian or Jewish Westerners, but between Islamic Arabs and scientific-materialist Westerners.
Because of the supremacy of the sciences in western thought, western culture has become caught in a cycle of ever-increasing changes. Western societies contend with an exponentially increasing pace of cultural changes. However, the pace and kinds of changes that we adapt to (with greater or lesser difficulty, to be sure) are exactly the changes that fundamentalist Arab Muslims correctly believe would destroy basic structures of their society which they believe are the divinely commanded. Islam's prohibition of homosexuality is very strict. But that is really the secondary issue here. Echoing my thought in my essay, Al-Faisal writes: The West today is following a secular-materialist philosophy, which it imposes on all other human beings - whether they like it or not. The struggle between the West and Islam is an ideological struggle, as Arab Muslims clearly recognize. Their revulsion at us is not because we are religious, in their view, but because we are not.
I hate to say it, though, but Al-Faisal has a point. Based on my years of experience in grappling with this issue in my own denomination, I can say it is very rare for a pro-gay advocate even to care what his or her own friends think about the issue, much less some semi-literate third-worlders half a planet away. The advocacy side is almost always dismissive to the point of contempt even of their own brethren in the same denomination who support the traditon of the church. Even so otherwise a humane figure as Jeff Jarvis wrote of those opposing Bishop Robinson's election, Let the bigots scream and leave; let them show themselves. Note well: the traditionalists are "bigots," not persons who might - just might - have a force of reason and influence of Christian faith in their minds and hearts. And what do you do with those you have dismissed as bigots? Why, you throw them out, of course. They are outside the pale and forfeit their place at the table - because they don't agree with you.
Such is the tolerance of the Left. Just think what the Left may do to Islam, given the occasion. No wonder Muslims are telling themselves to be afraid, be very afraid.
by Donald Sensing, 8/10/2003 08:13:00 PM. Permalink
|
A hot time in the old town tonight
Old London, that is. The weather people at Heathrow airport have recorded the highest temperature there ever, 100.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
To those of us who were born and raised in the Old South, 100 degrees is hot but quite bearable. But England doesn't experience near the high temps we do. The heat wave also extends to the continent, and the people across Europe are suffering. Air conditioning is not nearly as common as in the US.
Many years ago I visited Quebec, Canada, during the summer. I found the temps quite pleasant, but a Qubecois told me one day that they were suffering through a heat wave. He was sweating profusely. The temp that day? 80 degrees.
OTOH, I suffered through several consecutive days of 100-plus temps on a training exercise in southern Germany's Grafenwoehr Training Area during the summer of 1983. Unusually high temps, but I was told not very unusual.
"Graf" had wild temperature swings. In 1994 I froze my hiney off there during another training exercise. I was evaluating another unit's training status. They were scheduled to conduct a night occupation of position on the east range. I got there early to await their arrival.
It was bitterly cold. I shivered violently, wearing almost every article of winter clothing the Army had issued me - wool shirt, parka with liner, fur-lined hood, winter trousers, the works.
The night occupation was very late at night - after 11 p.m. That was the earliest it could be done in the dark because it didn't get dark until 11. Why?
Because the date was July 4.
I stood on the east range and watched the fireworks being launched over the main post area a few kilometers away. I was frozen as a popsicle. On the Fourth of July!
by Donald Sensing, 8/10/2003 02:40:00 PM. Permalink
|
Preaching on homosexuality
Here is my sermon I will preach this morning
The past week has not been a slow news week. Reporters have clocked in overtime. The Terminator threw his hat into the ring for the governor's race in California – along with former sitcom actor Gary Coleman, pornographer Larry Flynt and melon-smashing comedian Gallagher. All that's interesting, but it's not sermon material, so we'll move on.
The second news earthquake came from the convention of the Episcopal Church of the USA in Minneapolis. There the convention voted in favor of affirming a diocese's election of the Rev. Gene Robinson as bishop. What made that event newsworthy was that Robinson is a divorced father, a self-declared homosexual, who has been living with another man, facts all known to the convention.
Robinson's election may well cause the breakup of the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the archbishop of Canterbury, the Rev. Rowan Williams, is the head. In fact, Williams has called a special meeting of the communion's leader for this October in London to head off the dissolution of the Anglican Communion. He may succeed, but I don't think so.
I won't address internal matters of our Episcopal cousins from the pulpit; it would be inappropriate. But the issue begs the questions: What is the United Methodist Church's doctrine relevant to this issue, and where do we go from there?
The doctrines of the United Methodist Church are contained in two publications: the Book of Discipline [the UMC's canon law] and the Social Principles. Both books are affirmed by the denomination's general conference. The general conference exists only for a month or so, once every four years. It will meet next year. The general conference is the only body that can set the United Methodist Church's doctrine and policy.
Here is a summary our church's doctrine is, as stated by the Social Principles and the Discipline:
1. Sexual relations are affirmed only between two persons who are married to one another.
2. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, who enter not only into a legal relationship, but a religious, covenantal relationship.
3. Homosexual practice is not consistent with Christian teaching but homosexuals are not thereby outside of the grace of God.
4. Homosexuals are not to be excluded from the sacraments of the church, nor from the other rights and responsibilities of Christian fellowship.
The Book of Discipline states that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" may not be accepted as candidates for ordination, may not be ordained and may not serve under appointment as non-ordained local pastors. Furthermore, says the Discipline, "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches."
Now what?
The Bible has many passages that regulate human relationships, most of which do not deal with matters sexual. But the ones that do are pretty clear and pretty strict. For example:
1. Adultery is strictly forbidden.
2. Jesus expressly forbade husbands and wives to divorce except when one of them commits adultery.
3. Homosexual practice is prohibited more than once in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
A few gay activists have said that Christians who oppose homosexual practice would be more credible if they were just as energetic in emphasizing the Bible's commandments and principles relating to heterosexuality. They may have a point; the sad state of marriage in America today shows that church people, especially clergy, don't seem to care about marriage very much and that we are doing little to nurture sound marriages or head off divorces. Even evangelicals, who you'd expect to pound the Bible pretty hard on marriage, have a divorce rate pretty much the same as the general population.
Be that as it may, I remember the old adage that in matters of great public controversy, the stated issue often isn't the real issue. There is almost always an underlying conflict that all sides of the argument often don't recognize, much less acknowledge. In the matter of gay rights, especially relating to church doctrines and policies, our former bishop, Ken Carder, explained that the real issue is about what our sources of authority are. What, if anything, do we accept as definitively authoritative? Who or what gets the last word?
Since John Wesley's time, Methodists have accepted the three "corners" of Anglican teaching for working through religious issues. They are Scripture, tradition and reason. Wesley made that triangle into a square by adding experience. So we have four "filters," as it were, to use to shape our inquiries.
As Christians, we are obligated to bear a faithful Christian witness to Jesus Christ, the living reality at the center of the Church's life and witness. That being so, "Two considerations are central to this endeavor: the sources from which we derive our theological affirmations and the criteria by which we assess the adequacy of our understanding and witness" (Discipline, 63).
Historically, Methodists have affirmed that the core of Christian faith is revealed in Scripture. This revelation is illuminated by the tradition of the church, which provides the contexts in which we experience Christ and the life of faith. The human abilities to reason and inquire and learn sharpen our understanding of the revelation in Scripture.
For Wesley, Scripture formed the center about which the other elements took their places. But Wesley did not take the Bible the only source of authority. Indeed, Wesley considered anyone who claimed to need no book but the Bible a "rank enthusiast," holding that although Scripture was the primary authority, it was not the sole Christian authority; particular Scripture must be interpreted according to "the analogy of faith," by which he meant a "connected chain of spiritual truths."
Hence, Methodists are not known for "prooftexting," citing individual verses or passages to prove an argument. After all, you can show me your verses and I can show you mine from now to midnight. We try instead to understand the revelations of God's will and character as demonstrated throughout the Scriptures.
By tradition, Wesley included the tradition of the church universal, not only the tradition of a particular church. These traditions do not supplant the Scripture. Their authority is derived from Scripture.
But to make sense of the witness of Scripture and the tradition of the church requires a continual re-application of human powers of reason, and all these things, Scripture, tradition and reason, are found in new experiences.
By reason each of us relates the Christian message and faith to the wider fields of our experience. Reason informs our use of Scripture and tradition, which in turn illuminate how we should use the powers of reason to deal with the complete experiences of life.
The disputes today are between those who insist the church's core authority must remain Scripture, and those who give greater weight to human experience. Hence, those who advocate overturning the church's doctrine on homosexuality use arguments that are influenced by our secular, therapeutic culture. Recurring themes are inclusion and affirmation. They rarely cite Scripture except to dismiss it.
The defenders of the status quo, on the other hand, continue to refer primarily to Scripture and maintain that our responsibility is to remain faithful to the revelation of God in Scripture, no matter how out of step with the times it may appear to be.
This is a very serious controversy because its answer will determine the character of the church henceforth. One day the issue of homosexuality will be supplanted by something else. A church that has discarded Scripture as principally authoritative in favor of something else will be a very different kind of church.
I say this, however, recognizing that no church has ever been a completely biblical church. Since the beginning, Christians have emphasized some parts of the Bible and ignored other parts. The parts changed from place to place and time to time, but all churches do it.
So I say that it is "none of the above" that really must be the center of our community of faith. We will argue about the meaning of Scripture or the latest theory of homosexuality from now to the Second Coming and never get anywhere.
The center of our faith is not, and must never be, Scripture. Or experience. Or reason or tradition. The center of our faith is and must always be that Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ will come again.
Whether you count yourself as liberal or conservative, whether you are impassioned about this issue or don't care, there is really just one place that you and I must begin: do we each believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and have we each confessed with our mouths that Jesus is Lord?
Someone who says, "No," has a much greater problem than being on one side or the other of gay rights, or even being gay. And anyone who says yes, whether straight or gay, is part of an eternal community of grace and faith that is more valuable – and far more powerful – than such issues.
Through the work of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God we are one in Jesus Christ. We are living as disciples of Jesus Christ and leading others to become disciples. That is indispensable. When we stop doing that, we stop being a part of the body of Christ. We stop being a church! Discipleship is the imperative core of who we are. It is what unifies us. It is what can overcome what divides us.
Here is what John Wesley advised we Methodists should focus on for each other, and how we may remain in unity even while in controversy.
Does each of us believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, "God over all, blessed for ever?" Is he revealed in our souls? Do we know Christ crucified? Does he dwell in us, and us in him? Is he formed in our hearts by faith? Have we submitted ourselves to the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Christ? Do we trust not in our own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ? And through Christ, are we fighting the good fight of faith, and laying hold of eternal life?
Are we filled with the energy of love? Do we love God with all our hearts and with all our minds, and with all our souls, and do we love our neighbors as ourselves? Do we show this by blessing them that curse us, and praying for those that despitefully use us, and persecute us? Do we show our love by our deeds?
If we focus on those things together, and speak the truth in love to one another, then we will have the love and grace to resolve our issues in a way pleasing to Christ, whatever their resolution may be.
by Donald Sensing, 8/10/2003 07:40:00 AM. Permalink
|
Saturday, August 09, 2003
On Lieberman
Thin Veneer describes himself (herself?) as "a center-right Jew who's still a registered Democrat" and who will "probably vote for Bush." He takes Joe Lieberman to task for smacking President Bush down for the prez's remarks about Israel's security fence. Says TV: I don't think Lieberman is really helping Israel's cause by taking this kind of shot against Bush. Nor do I think it will help Lieberman in the Democratic primary, since I suspect most Jewish Democratic voters are to the left when it comes to the peace process and the security fence. I wouldn't know, myself, but it sounds credible to me.
by Donald Sensing, 8/09/2003 08:10:00 PM. Permalink
|
Archbishop of Canterbury takes steps to dissolve the Anglican worldwide communion
The Most Rev. Rowan Williams is the archbishop of Canterbury, the clergy head of the Church of England and also the religious "manager" of Anglican churches worldwide, including the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA). The Anglican churches worldwide are referred to as the worldwide communion.
Williams blocked Jeffrey John, a gay priest in Britain, from becoming a bishop in July after after Nigeria's archbishop threatened to withdraw his church from the communion if John was made bishop - despite the fact that Williams is considered by the left and right alike to be firmly in the liberal camp.
In the wake of the recent election of ECUSA's Rev. Gene Robinson as the first openly homosexual bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion, Rev. Williams has taken the first step toward dissolving the worldwide communion.
Not on purpose and not intentionally, mind you. His intention is quite the opposite. He has done what seems a most reasonable thing by declaring that there will be a special meeting of the communion's leaders in London in October. "I am clear that the anxieties caused by recent developments have reached the point where we will need to sit down and discuss their consequences," he said in a statement. I have no doubt that William's heart is in the right place in calling for this meeting. I am truly convinced that he wants to find a way to prevent the dissolution of the Anglican Communion even while he acknowledges that Robinson's election makes that task very difficult.
But I predict that the October meeting will be seen later as the second step in the communion's schism, the first being Robinson's election, of course.
Williams is in an impossible position. He is not the Anglican equivalent of the Pope, who exercises command authority over Roman Catholic clergy everywhere. Williams' lacks directive authority over ECUSA and could not block Robinson's election as he could John's, who is a clergy under William's supervision. Furthermore, the vast majority of worldwide Anglicans are in neither England nor North America, but in Africa and other third-world countries. Africa is heavily Christianized - the number of Christians in Africa is greater than the gross population of all North America.
Third World Christians, whether Anglican or not, are generally much more theologically conservative than UK-Americans. They also tend to be more evangelically oriented and give the Bible a higher degree of authority than their first-world colleagues. The insistence by African Anglicans that a communion church's endorsement of homosexuality for clergy and especially bishops is contrary to the teachings of Scripture is very deep rooted among African leaders.
Furthermore, the meeting is so soon after Robinson's election that passions and emotions on both sides will still be high, never a helpful thing for such occasions. Also, the planned meeting is already catching flak from both sides. Conservatives in America and Africa have stated their positions quite concretely and will be alert for any move by Williams to use the meeting to force a fait accompli. The pro-gay side has denounced the fact that no openly gay representatives of Anglican gay ministries have been invited.
Conservatives, the huge numerical majority, have drawn a line in the sand. Liberals have become increasingly radicalized. My crystal ball says that for Archbishop Williams essentially to plead, "Can't we all get along?" will be unheeded by both sides. Neither side will budge, and the meeting will ensure that they all know it. The end of the meeting will mark the beginning of the end of the unity of the worldwide Anglican communion.
I say this with sadness, since Methodists and Anglicans are first cousins, religiously speaking. I have frequently logged on to the web site of Westminster Abbey for liturgies and perspectives. So I would ask those who are willing to keep the communion in prayer.
Update: I discovered from my referrer logs that this post is now linked at the Main News Page of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
by Donald Sensing, 8/09/2003 02:12:00 PM. Permalink
|
Metrosexuality and its cure
Discussing gender confusion just got more confusing
Mark Simpson at Slate.com wrote a year ago, "Meet the metrosexual. He's well dressed, narcissistic and bun-obsessed. But don't call him gay." . . . to determine a metrosexual, all you have to do is look at them. In fact, if you're looking at them, they're almost certainly metrosexual. The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis -- because that's where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual preference. Particular professions, such as modeling, waiting tables, media, pop music and, nowadays, sport, seem to attract them but, truth be told, like male vanity products and herpes, they're pretty much everywhere.
. . . The stoic, self-denying, modest straight male didn't shop enough (his role was to earn money for his wife to spend), and so he had to be replaced by a new kind of man, one less certain of his identity and much more interested in his image -- that's to say, one who was much more interested in being looked at (because that's the only way you can be certain you actually exist). A man, in other words, who is an advertiser's walking [fantasy]. The Age (Australia) reports much the same thing. Men of all sexualities are taking a greater interest in their appearance. They go to hairdressers rather than barbers; avoid using soap because it's too harsh on their skin; visit the gym instead of playing sport and even have difficulty deciding what to wear.
They're occupying their time differently - not only spending more of it in front of the mirror, but also at boutiques, in bars rather than pubs, enjoying a dance at a nightclub and going to beauty salons. Cosmetics brands such as Ella Bache say men make up as much as 40 per cent of their salon customers in some areas. The New York Times got into the act last month: BY his own admission, 30-year-old Karru Martinson is not what you'd call a manly man. He uses a $40 face cream, wears Bruno Magli shoes and custom-tailored shirts. His hair is always just so, thanks to three brands of shampoo and the precise application of three hair grooming products. There is even a Blogspot-hosted website, Metrosexual Chic (it appears to have been hacked Aug. 8), that offers a definition thusly: (MET.roh.sek.shoo.ul) noun. A dandyish narcissist in love with not only himself, but also his urban lifestyle. An example of use: The only problem facing the metrosexual in an otherwise carefree existence is the inescapable effects of ageing. If 30 is 45 in gay years, then 26 is retirement age for the metrosexual — and no amount of biotechnological, rehydrating, whale sperm dermo-care can alter that. — Jonathan Trew, "I love me so much," The Scotsman, July 24, 2002 Tom Purcell at Men's News Daily calls metrosexuality "the latest trend in the decline of the American male." He blames feminists: First they convinced men that we were wrong, that our tendencies and habits were products of how we were socialized as boys. They changed the socialization process to make us more sensitive, more emotional, more like women.
Once the door was open the marketers, those parasites, drove a Mack truck through it. They applied the same techniques on men that had always been successful with women. They beat us down and made us feel fat, ugly and unwanted so that we'd buy their lies, and the many useless products they advertise, to make ourselves feel better.
Boy, have they succeeded. Whereas men used to talk about sports or transmission maintenance, now they argue over botox and liposuction. Instead of watching football at the neighborhood pub, they're at the mall trying on jeans and tops and spike heels. And he has some sound advice to metrosexual men whose mansulnity is in danger of disappearing altogether.
I would offer my own advice: Buy something from this web page and learn how to use it. Ride one of these. Take a long vacation here. Rent one of these and spend a day making it howl. Spend a Saturday every month doing this.
And if metrosexual inclinations persist, I guarantee they will be eliminated at this special seaside retreat.
by Donald Sensing, 8/09/2003 06:46:00 AM. Permalink
|
Friday, August 08, 2003
The commies are making converts
And Lone Dissenter is one of them.
by Donald Sensing, 8/08/2003 08:07:00 PM. Permalink
|
The "Ellen DeGeneres of preaching"
James Joyner comments on a WashTimes story about newly installed, openly gay, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson. The bishop is traveling to England to address a convocation of gays. Says James, When Ellen's TV character "came out," the show immediately went from a situation comedy about the life of a complex individual to "that gay show." It wasn't simply that the character "happened to be gay;" that happenstance was the show. It rapidly is shaping up to be that way for Robinson: His sexual identity and the political agenda inherent in his status are going to be central fact of his ministry. Well, it's maybe a little early to tell, but we'll see.
Update: Katherine Kersten writes in OpinionJournal of the absence of actual theological thinking in "testimony in the [church's] convention's hearing rooms:" Speakers who urged approval of homosexual unions did not use the vocabulary or categories of thought of the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer. Instead, they appeared to embrace a new gospel, heavily influenced by America's secular, therapeutic culture. This gospel has two watchwords: inclusion and affirmation. Its message? Jesus came to make us feel good about ourselves.
Adherents of the gospel of inclusion offered arguments like this: "The church should bless same-sex partnerships so everyone feels included." "People will want to join this church if they see others being welcomed." "God is love. He doesn't care about the gender of the people we love." This is a very perceptive article, especially her observation that, "This new gospel may be appealing, for it permits its adherents to 'divinize' their own, largely secular agenda." Deifying such agendas is the modus operandi of the Left. See here, where I discussed this fact in the context of the religious Left's opposition to liberating Iraq.
by Donald Sensing, 8/08/2003 07:55:00 PM. Permalink
|
Glenn Reynolds, link to this man now!
He has excellent reasons!
by Donald Sensing, 8/08/2003 07:36:00 PM. Permalink
|
Oh, the humanity!
I said, "the humanity," not the "inhumanity." A Russian detainee at the US facility in Guantanamo, Cuba, wrote his mother, I think that there is not even a health resort in Russia on the level of this place. So his mother is pleading with authorities to leave her son there!
by Donald Sensing, 8/08/2003 07:28:00 PM. Permalink
|
1st Amendment is now a "gun show loophole"
How low will they go? Well, gun-control nuts think it's okay to compel restraint of trade and censorship to achieve their goals. As someone once pointed out: gun control isn't really about guns, it's about control.
by Donald Sensing, 8/08/2003 07:24:00 PM. Permalink
|
Rush Limbaugh: Mocking bloggers
An open letter, sort of, to Rush Limbaugh
Yesterday David Hill compared blogs to Rush Limbaugh, the self-proclaimed creator of "excellence in broadcasting." Limbaugh's daily, three-hour radio show reaches about 20 million listeners per day, the largest audience of any talk-radio show. He has been on the air for 15 years and was a major player in tracking the Clinton scandals. In November 2000 he appeared on TV, next to NBC News' chief anchor Tom Brokaw, to commentate on election night.
Rush is a major media figure, that is clear. He is influential. Yet if he were to call me up and ask my advice (yeah, right), I would tell him the same thing one of my homiletics professors told my class one day: "Be careful what you preach. Someone might believe you."
Hill wrote, I doubt that blogging or any specific bloggers will match Limbaugh's record-setting pace for gathering influence in the political process. And he went on to show why, in his opinion, bloggers individually or collectively will never come close to "El Rushbo's" influence.
Rush, ever alert for the faintest praise, found out about Hill's article and gleefully read part of it on the air today. Not content to stop there, Rush careened along, offering sarcastic definitions of blogging and bloggers. Bloggers , he said, are "nerds" who "have a journalism degree" and wish they had the influence of major media, but instead email each other and pretend they are having an effect. That's not precisely what he said, but it is pretty close, and it wasn't the only thing derogatory he said about blogs or blogging.
[Update: Glenn Reynolds supplies the actual quote: "a nerd with a journalist degree and no social life who spends most days and all nights writing e-mails to himself and his friends in hopes of attracting attention from traditional media outlets." I wasn't too far off in recollection. You can hear the segment, linked by Rush's website.]
But Rush, think this through. Only a few bloggers have journalism degrees: Jeff Jarvis and Bill Hobbs, for example. I have a diploma from the Defense Information School, whose journalism curriculum is accredited by the same outfit that accredits Notre Dame. But the vast majority of bloggers don't have a J. degree.
Unlike you and radio, Rush, we are not making a living blogging, except maybe Andrew Sullivan. I have made a grand total of maybe $500 in donations, blogging since March 2002, and am darn grateful for every penny. Before you slash your razor tongue at us, consider that you are a mercenary, bloviating for money. We are what people used to praise world-class amateur athletes for doing: being in the game for the love of the game. We blog for the love of it and you commentate for money, yet you decide we are the ones who deserve scorn and ridicule. No wonder so many people think you're a windbag. As Lileks says, your show "is three hours of shoveled coal" but your "scope is narrow."
I have never considered blogs, my own or another's, as a competitor to mass media like radio. People can listen to radio anywhere - in the car, at work, at home, on the beach. But for now, reading blogs chains you to specific locations. Perhaps news technology, better than WiFi, will break those chain, I dunno. But it doesn't matter anyway. You are not my competitor, and I am not yours.
You don't understand what blogging is all about and what it does, unlike your strong competitor in radio talkery, G. Gordon Liddy, who has more than 10 million daily listeners himself, hardly a lightweight. Liddy has embraced the blogosphere in just about the last week or so. As gleefully as you denigrate it, Liddy uses it to enhance his own show. He reads from blogs (not mine yet), identifies the writers and points out how blogging is fact checking mainline media. In other words, Liddy gets leads from blogs.
Rush, you should consider that Glenn Reynolds "has more traffic every month than certain major magazines I could name," says Jeff Jarvis. Furthermore, His unique audience is significant. At its height, during the war, Instapundit had 1.6 million in its audience; that's the circulation of the magazine I created, Entertainment Weekly. It took EW 10 years to reach that level (and a $200 million investment!!). It took Glenn less two years and a a few grand. Of course, Instapundit is free and magazines cost money and so the comparison on the basis of popularity is unfair. But the comparison on the basis of influence is quite fair.
Or look at the numbers another way: That size of audience would make Instapundit the third biggest newspaper in America, beating out the NY Times. Again, the comparison is unfair (newspapers get that circulation every day; he gets it over a month). But still, the point is the same: Instapundit is an influence. So are other weblogs. So are weblogs as a whole.
Just yesterday, I had a pleasant lunch with a magazine editor who could not be talked into doing a story on weblogs. A few newpaper-editor friends of mine make fun of me for blogging and poo-poo the phenom.
At your peril, folks, at your peril. Hill says that . . . many bloggers's preparations for their stream-of-consciousness commentaries seem limited to reading the ruminations of other bloggers and scanning Internet news. Because some bloggers, even prominent ones, spend so much time writing throughout the entire day, they don't research their own ideas well enough to be persuasive. Hill needs to buy a flipping clue. Has he seen this blog? How about this one? Or (immodestly), this page? I'd say not.
Sure, there are thousands of blogs that flare up and die out, and just as many bloggers who never really garner more than a few dozen readers per day. (But remember, they're doing it from desire, not for money.) But, as Jeff Jarvis pointed out, there are others which are widely read and whose influence is growing. See N. Z. Bear's traffic-tracking page, for example.
What blogs of this nature are, more than anything, is information aggregators. Perusing only a few of the top 100 blogs, for example, will yield much more informed commentary about a wider range of topics for three hours spent than your show ever covers. Bloggers tend to write about what they know, and we usually have professional credentials in the discipline concerned.
Unlike Rush's show, blogs' content is enduring. My archives are here. Accessing them is free. OTOH, anyone who wants to access your archives must "join" your site for up to $83.40 per annum.
Take a clue from Liddy, Rush, and use the blogs to your advantage. It can only help you. We aren't your competitors. But on the other hand, you probably would be wise not to provoke the blogosphere very much. Just ask Trent Lott.
by Donald Sensing, 8/08/2003 06:46:00 PM. Permalink
|
Saddam ordered chemical attacks against US troops
The Boston Globe reports that former UN weapons inspector David Kay testified to Congress last week, that he has uncovered solid information from interviews, documents, and physical evidence that Iraqi military forces were ordered to attack US troops with chemical weapons, but did not have the time or capability to follow through, according to senior defense and intelligence officials. . . .
On March 28, one week into the war, US Central Command's deputy director for operations, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, said, ''We have seen indications through a variety of sources . . . [that] orders have been given that at a certain point chemical weapons may be used.'' Kay's allegation is met with skepticism by some other experts, though, who say that Kay is predisposed toward believing Iraq possessed such weapons.
I wrote in my August 2002 essay, " Fighting a winter campaign in Iraq," that weather and our forces' speed would mitigate against use of chemical weapons. Even so, I observed in January of this year that using WMDs against US troops is a no-lose move for Saddam. It's good we moved too fast for him to do so; I have no doubt that it was a sgnificant factor in war planning.
by Donald Sensing, 8/08/2003 04:23:00 PM. Permalink
|
Thursday, August 07, 2003
Tolerance?
A decade ago a man and his wife visited my church (I was a layman then) in Springfield, Virginia. They were new to the area and were "church shopping," as we sometimes put it nowadays. They came to our Sunday School for several Sundays, then we did not see them again. This pattern happened a lot because the DC metro area is very transient and we got a lot of visitors.
A few months later they returned. They told me in conversation that they had joined a Presbysterian church (I don't know whether PC(USA) or PCA) but resigned in disgust over what happened in the church service a week or so before. The pastor and the lay leader had excommunicated a member during the service.
Now, "excommunication" is just shorthand here because it is really a Catholic thing to do. What the pastor and lay leader had really done was direct the man concerned to cease participation in the fellowship of the church until certain issues had been resolved. What were the issues? I found out from other friends who were directly familiar with the situation.
The man, let's call him Al because it's easy to type, was married to "Jane." But Al decided to dump Jane for Mary, a co-worker. So one day Al moved out of his house and moved in with Mary, leaving Jane alone with their two kids. Al never filed divorce papers, never even asked for a separation. He just moved out of his home with Jane and moved in with Mary.
Jane told the pastor, who asked the lay leadership of the church, other men whom Al respected, to go see Al with the aim in mind of helping Jane and Al move toward reconciliation. Al refused to cooperate. The churchmen tried again. Al wouldn't budge.
The Al began bringing Mary to church with him. He sat with her during the service. You can imagine, I am sure, the distress this caused Jane and the children. And Jane's friends. And Al's friends. The congregation, about 400 in size, began to polarize on the issue. On the one side were people who said it was nobody's business but Al and Jane's and everyone else should stay out of it. Then there were those who said that the Al should be treated with compassion and understanding, since no one really knew what had transpired between him and Jane. And who are we to judge? And the third group said that the Scriptures were pretty clear on this matter: adultery was adultery and if the church pretended it didn't matter, then the church would be forfeiting something essential about itself.
The matter finally came before the church's governing board, which voted to send the lay leader and pastor to Al with basically an ultimatum: Al was to cease living with Mary and accept the assistance of a denominationally approved pastoral marriage counselor to discern whether, even at this late date, his marriage could be saved. (Jane was agreeable to this.) If he agreed, the full weight of the church's support would be behind him. But he was not to treat Mary as if she were his wife.
Al refused and pretty much threw them out. Then on Sunday he showed up again with Mary. The pastor truncated the service a little and then explained to the congregation what the situation was. Then the pastor and lay leader, acting with the prior approval of the board, instructed Al and Mary they were not welcome in the church any longer.
The couple who returned to our church told me that they were shocked that someone had been "thrown out" of a church, so they decided to come back to my church where "that sort of thing would never happen." I was not sure their closing comment was a compliment to our church.
Now consider: the man just elected bishop by the American Episcopal Church, Gene Robinson, is divorced from a woman. As James Lileks wrote today (skip the part about Arnold and read the last section of his post): The guy left his wife and kids to go do the hokey-pokey with someone else . . . . Marriages founder for a variety of reasons, and ofttimes they're valid reasons, sad and inescapable. But "I want to have sex with other people" is not a valid reason for depriving two little girls of a daddy who lives with them, gets up at night when they're sick, kisses them in the morning when they wake. There's a word for people who leave their children because they don't want to have sex with Mommy anymore: selfish. . . .
Who are you to judge? is the standard response, and I quote Captain James T. Kirk when asked the same question by Kodos the Executioner: who do I have to be? . . .
If he'd cast off his family to cavort with a woman from the choir, I'm not sure he'd be elevated to the level of moral avatar - but by some peculiar twist the fact that he left mom for a man insulates him from criticism. It's as if he had to do it. To stay in the marriage would have been (crack of thunder, horses neighing) living a lie, and nowadays we're told that's the worst thing anyone can do. Better to bedevil other lives with the truth than inconvenience your own with a lie. Right? If others are harmed in the short run, eventually they will be happy because you're happier. Right? There is no way on God's green earth that Robinson would have been elected bishop by his own diocese, much less the entire denomination, if he had left his wife for another woman. Lileks is right: he moved in with a man, and the church has endorsed all of it: his past sexual infidelity, breaking his marriage vows, and his continued enjoyment of illicit sex. All have now been given the Episcopal Church Seal of Approval.
Robinson's homosexuality - nothing else - gave him a free pass to break his marriage vows and have sexual relations outside marriage and not only that, but to be held forth as a paradigm of Christian personhood, a bishop. This is apparently what the Episcopal Church stands for now: sexual infidelity is okay for gays but not for straights. Marriage vows are revocable if someone else catches your eye, but only if you're homosexual.
But that's okay, because to claim that the church should have, you know, standards, is intolerant. And intolerance is the only remaining mortal sin these days.
by Donald Sensing, 8/07/2003 01:56:00 PM. Permalink
|
Gray Davis in now burnt toast
The fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger has cast his hat into the ring for California governor means that Gray Davis is toast, even if Arnold doesn't win.
For those unfamiliar with how the recall will work two months from today, there will be two questions on the ballot. The first question will be whether to boot Davis out of office. The second question lists the candidates for governor. As I understand it - someone leave a correcting comment if I'm wrong - a simple majority of votes against Davis in Q1 means he's gone. Gray stays in office if the votes against him are less than a majority. A mere plurality of votes for a candidate in Q2 means s/he is elected. There is no runoff. One trip to the ballots decides the issue.
Arnold's stature in California is very high. Gray's is very low; he's pulling about 22 percent approval. Many people will vote against Gray now who would have voted for him before, and who won't vote for Arnold on the second question. Why? Because now the race is really interesting and has everything that Californians tend to love: suspense, glamour, celebrity, unpredictability and "buzz."
And a lot Arnold's fans who would not have voted at all will go to the polls.
Arnold kicked off his campagn as a populist. He had obviously scripted out his announcement carefully: "The people are doing their job" but Gray Davis is not. They need a governor who will work for the people instead of the special interests.
But the main problem in California is its financial crisis. As Oct. 7 gets closer people will want to know what Arnold is going to do about that. Slogans won't work then. Arnold needs to have a real plan that makes sense to get the California's economy back on track, and he needs to get it quick.
Other Arnold coverage
Bill Hobbs has already posted good stuff about Arnold's candidacy this morning. He says it's time for every other Republican candidate to bow out. Start there are scroll down.
The Washington Times story is here, the WaPo's story is here.
The San Franscisco Chronicle says, "Arnold Schwarzenegger just sucked all the air out of California's political establishment." It also reinforces my point above: Schwarzenegger adds a measure of stability to the recall election and the clown posse of potential candidates lining up to challenge Davis. He instantly clears the field, even if prominent Democrats like Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante enter the race to protect their own party. The Ventura County Star moans the fact that Sen. Dianne Feinstein declined to run.
The San Jose Mercuty News has a bare bones article with just the facts.
Overseas coverage:
The Age, Australia; National Business Review, New Zealand; Reuters, UK; The Globe and Mail, Canada;
by Donald Sensing, 8/07/2003 08:03:00 AM. Permalink
|
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder . . . .
Gary Coleman is running for California governor. "I thought (the recall) was a joke. They thought it was a joke. And I thought, hey, why not," Coleman, 35, told CNN. "I'm probably the least qualified for the job, but I'll have some great people around me." Here are Mr. Coleman's credentials. Really.
by Donald Sensing, 8/06/2003 10:21:00 PM. Permalink
|
Stuff
Gigli may be the biggest box-office bomb ever - even its studio has abandoned it (tip: American Digest)
G. in Baghdad says a woman has been appointed judge, but it isn't clear that she has been sworn in. At the end of July the swearing-in was postponed because of protests.
Chris Lansdown says that my review of The Day the Earth Stood Still misses the point of the movie, and so does that of Jonathan Gerwitz, who basically agrees with me. Chris takes issue with how I understand Klaatu's closing, angry speech. Klaatu never issued a demand that we stop warring with each other on earth. Klaatu explicitly said that his race didn't care at all. So long as we were just killing each other, they didn't care at all. . . . Sorry, no. What Klaatu said was that the spacemen don't care how we govern ourselves. But if war broke out again, "the earth will be reduced to a cinder."
Consider the pedagogical point of the movie: it could not possibly have been to declare, as Chris asserts, that humanity must not make war in outer space. Even Sputnik was still only wishful thinking back then. The Cold War's arms race was on earth. The message, "Don't fight in outer space" would have made no sense at all.
Phil Fraering read my post on "lie detectors" and tells of a report that the machines are "totally useless in interviewing Iraqi persons of interest," who apparently can beat them. He also wonders whether the story of the infamous Xerox machine lie detector is true. Yes, it is. I knew investigators who swore they had used it when photocopying machines were new technology.
Adrian Rollett observes of marriage today: Marriage, in what is evidently its most popular version, is now on the one hand an intimate “relationship” involving (ideally) two successful careerists in the same bed, and on the other hand a sort of private political system in which rights and interests must be constantly asserted and defended. Marriage, in other words, has now taken the form of divorce: a prolonged and impassioned negotiation as to how things shall be divided. During their understandably temporary association, the “married” couple will typically consume a large quantity of merchandise and a large portion of each other. Bill Hobbs discusses a recent proposal for a blogger's code of ethics.
Chief Wiggles in Iraq talks about leaving the desert and the men he had grown close to.
Josh Claybourn says that the election of an openly gay bishop "isn't even the most significant development going on in the Episcopal Church right now." But it's related.
Michael Williams says the renowned commentator Ralph Peters really missed the boat in writing about Muslim fundamentalists. He's right.
Reid Stott says that President Bush is "tone deaf" on thse issue of Saudfi complicity in al Qaeda's terrorism.
Joe Katzman returns to analyzing American politics. And good analysis it is.
Update: Oh, so now Chris Lansdown and Tom Rothamel think they can win the argument about The Day the Earth Stood Still with mere facts. Well, yes, actually I guess they can.
It's still a movie that has aged lousy. As the French would say, it is now "le junque."
by Donald Sensing, 8/06/2003 02:22:00 PM. Permalink
|
Sparing civilians in war - does it make the peace harder?
Glenn Reynolds links to Stephen Green's piece about how modern war is waged in a way that greatly reduces the deaths of civilians.
"However," says Stephen, "doing so takes a lot of the pain out of being on the losing side. And without pain, the lesson becomes harder to learn. . . . And it makes waging the peace harder, too," because the huge impact of real defeat is not widely felt among the population.
I wrote about this is some detail back in March of last year in my essay, Precision Weapons, Abject Defeat, and Reshaping Societies. An excerpt: The Americans rejected terror bombing in World War II, but not for long. As the war went on and on, and German and Japanese resistance failed to slacken, President Roosevelt decided that the German and Japanese peoples must realize after the war that not only had their armed forces been defeated: the entire nation, as a nation, had been beaten. He and Churchill were well aware that German militarism had survived World War I because its apologists had successfully propagated the myth that the Kaiser's army had not really been defeated, it had been "stabbed in the back" by disloyal factions at home.
Hence, said, Roosevelt,It is of utmost importance that every person in Germany should realize that this time Germany is a defeated nation. . . . The fact that they are a defeated nation, collectively and individually, must be so impressed upon them that they will hesitate to start any new war. (Roosevelt's policy seems not far from Civil War Gen. William T. Sherman's observation of the Confederate States, "War, and war alone, can inspire our enemy with respect, and they will have their belly full of that very soon.")
So, according to historian Richard B. Frank in his award-winning book, Downfall, the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire:Viewed in this light, massive urban bombing complemented the aim of unconditional surrender. It was not just a handful of vile men who flaunted vile ideologies; whole populations imbibed these beliefs and acted as willing acolytes. Unconditional surrender and vast physical destruction would sear the price of aggression into the minds of the German and Japanese peoples. No soil would be left from which myths might later sprout that Germany and Japan had not really been defeated. These policies would assure that there would be no third world war with Germany, nor would Japan get a second opportunity. One notes that Japan and Germany have been well behaved since 1945. But we also have to note that massive, destructive bombing was alone not the reason. It was simply impossible for either country's armed forces to claim that they had prevailed, or at least held their own, on the field of battle. German and Japanese orphans, widows and grieving parents were in almost every other household, and a lie that their armed forces had not really lost could not possibly have found legs to stand on. Does the way we waged war against Germany and Japan hold lessons for us today? I observed, Our task is therefore over the long term to bring home to these nations, at every level of their societies, the fact that Japan had to face: the times, they are a-changing. These nations must come to realize at every level that they cannot successfully continue with business as before. They must transition into democratically based institutions with free-market systems and individual freedoms. The question is, can these reforms be brought about either non-violently or do they require profound suffering by their peoples? And I answered, "No," they do not require profound suffering of their peoples, at least not suffering inflicted by the United States.
Stephen writes, We're doing the right thing, waging war the way we do today. War, any war, is terrible enough even without massive civilian casualties. But to fight the modern way makes waging war more difficult.
And it makes waging the peace harder, too. I may be mistaken, but I think have a pretty fair advantage over Mr. Green when it comes to knowing about waging war. Fighting the modern way is certainly not more difficult than before. It is not easy - Stephen is right that war is never easy - but to imply that this year's Iraq campaign was somehow more difficult than, say, the Normandy invasion or the Battle for Manila is just plain wrong. America's modern way of war enables us to defeat the enemy much faster than ever, and there is no way that means war is more difficult than it was, oh, at the Battle of Gettysburg.
The Iraqi soldiers who survived the war this year are not claiming that they were not really defeated. Many of them have been beaten by the US twice - 1991 and 2003. They know they were beaten badly and could not have prevailed even with better generalship. Modern technology enabled us to defeat Iraq's military without killing enormous casualties among Iraqis. The moral imperative therefore demanded we not do so, and we didn't.
I think Mr. Green has misread the lessons of World War II. In WW 2, the entire populations of both Germany and Japan were united in wishing to defeat America. Neither greeted US troops as liberators. But the Iraqi people did. Had we killed Iraqis on anything approaching the scale we killed Japanese and Germans, we would actually be having a much more difficult time with the peace than we are. We would have made enemies of the Iraqi people.
Stephen says, "The problem we have in Iraq is, we smashed their army, but not the country." Well, that's not a problem! Smashing the country would have served us no good end. Besides, Saddam had already smashed the country pretty hard.
Maybe missed Stephen's point, but wistfully imagining that if only we had leveled Iraq's major cities we'd be better off is appalling.
by Donald Sensing, 8/06/2003 08:58:00 AM. Permalink
|
Worst villains of American history
Dean Esmay has a list, and boy, is it rough. It is refreshing, though, to see that he is one of the few people who knows that the original Ku Klux Klan, founded by former Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, was formally disbanded just a few years after it was formed. Dean writes, Religious and racial hate-monger William J. Simmons founded an organization in 1918 that he called the "Ku Klux Klan." This was named after a post-civil war group of the same name, which had been a vigilante enforcement arm of the Democratic Party in the South, but had petered out to insignificance by the 1870s. . . .
Simmons fraudulently misrepresented his organization as the same as this earlier organization--and unfortunately, some historical sources still accept this fraud. The modern KKK has no lineage with Forrest's organization, yet Forrest continues to take the rap. One minor nit to pick- Dean says the modern KKK was broken in the 1940s, but that is much too early. It really was not broken until southern police forces achieved a significant level of racial integration because the cops always knew who the Klanners were and what they were up to, and some police were Klanners. But their collusion could not survive a racially integrated police force.
by Donald Sensing, 8/06/2003 06:54:00 AM. Permalink
|
Mutual Assured Destruction is no more
But there is nothing to take its place yet.
In 1983, at the height of the Cold War, a rogue Soviet general came breathtakingly close to detonating an atomic warhead on an American Air Force base in West Germany. He had successfully caused the warhead, pilfered from Soviet stores, to be smuggled to the base aboard a train. The plot was discovered and thwarted, barely in time, by MI-6, the British intelligence service.
Fortunately, this scenario was merely a movie plot for the James Bond film, Octopussy. But it unintentionally was a warning bell, not for Soviet plots, but for the world of the unloosed atom after the fall of the Soviet Union. Today's prospective smugglers are not power-mad Russians, but calculating, fanatic terrorists, monied by Arab and Persian oil and supplied by the last Sovietlike regime on the planet - North Korea.
Geitner Simmons reports, More than 150 policy makers from a wide range of agencies are gathered this week at Offutt Air Force Base just south of Omaha for a very big conference on U.S. nuclear strategy. The conference, at the U.S. Strategic Command, will take a hard look at whether computer modeling is an adequate method for checking weapons viability.
It's widely thought that the conference will examine the possible development of mini-nukes, including nuclear bunker busters. The reason for the re-evaluation? Two words: North Korea.
One of the big issues of reformulating the strategy is that technology has moved on since Mutual Assured Destruction dominated nuclear thinking of both the US and the USSR. While atomic weapons are still complex and expensive, manufacturing them is not near the dark art it used to be. Many more scientists and engineers are trained in the skills than ever before.
Furthermore, those scientists and engineers are working for despots who reject the terms of Mutual Assured Destruction. MAD, for all its moral horror, turned out actually to be a means of keeping the peace, or at least preventing the Great Powers from confronting each other directly. We still fought each other by proxy, but both the USSR and US realized that they could never risk directly fighting one another.
Another factor mitigating against nuclear war was that neither the Soviets nor America wanted to destroy the other. We simply wanted to prevent the USSR from gaining dominance, and the Soviets wanted to convert us to communism rather than lay us to ruin. As I explained last September on why deterrence worked against the Soviets, Having come to power through violent revolution, Stalin and successors wanted to foment similar revolutions in other countries. Yet successful revolutions are mass movements. They require masses of people to be converted, emotionally, to the revolutionary side, either actively to participate or passively support it. Persuasion, not destruction, was always the linchpin of the Soviet export of Marxism-Leninism to other lands. Not everyone in a country needed to be converted, but without a "critical mass" of True Believers, communism could not be established except as a fringe movement. . . .
But the motivations of our terrorist enemies are nihilistic, not constructive. That is the danger that North Korea poses. It is unquestionably at least a near-atomic power, if it has not already placed actual weapons into operational status. It has tested ICBMs that can reach American soil; these have been tracked on radar. Also, we have known for years that North Korea is in bed with Iran concerning nuclear technology, and North Korea supplies other advanced weapons to other countries - recall the ship full of SCUD missiles intercepted last year, bound for Yemen.
Our first atomic weapon needed the largest bomber the Air Force had to fly it to Hiroshima. The present state of the art enables equally destructive weapons to be manufactured as a kit that can be smuggled in pieces into the United States and reassembled. Yes, smuggling the radioactive fission material would present a challenge. However, consider this scenario: All the other pieces would be smuggled in first, received by al Qaeda sleeper or others ideologically allied with them, and then the fission material is sent. In fact, more than one fission warhead is sent, maybe several - North Korea has a robust processing capability. They could well send a dozen fission sets to be smuggled into the country. Care to bet we would intercept them all? I wouldn't.
This situation led former CIA director James Woolsey and former retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney to write yesterday that "North Korea's long-range ballistic missile program and the prospect of its sale of fissionable material to terrorists make this a direct matter of U.S. security." They continued that if North Korea remains intractable, , The U.S. and South Korea must instead come together and begin to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime.
It is not reasonable to limit the use of force to a surgical strike destroying Yongbyon. Although the facility would need to be destroyed, the possible existence of another plutonium reprocessing plant or of uranium-enrichment facilities, or of plutonium hidden elsewhere, makes it infeasible to limit the use of force to such a single objective. Moreover, military action against North Korea must protect South Korea from certain attack (particularly from artillery just north of the DMZ that can reach Seoul). In short, we must be prepared to win a war, not execute a strike. . . .
The goal of the planning should be to be prepared on short notice both to destroy the nuclear capabilities at Yongbyon and other key North Korean facilities and to protect South Korea against attack by destroying North Korean artillery and missile sites. Our stealth aircraft, equipped with precision bombs, and cruise missiles will be crucial--these weapons can be tailored to incinerate the WMD and minimize radiation leakage. This is a sobering prospect, but shows how far we have moved from the grim stability of the Cold War. While North Korea's xenophobia is great, the only reason for its pursuit of nuclear weapons except to move toward their eventual use against America.
The whole situation makes me think of the title of a chapter in William Manchester's masterpiece, Goodbye, Darkness: "We Are Living Very Fast." Yes, we are.
Other relevant posts:
When I visited North Korea
Firebase Four-Papa-One, Korean DMZ, 1978
Photos from North Korea
Balance of power against North Korea
Is North Korea really just a paper tiger?
by Donald Sensing, 8/06/2003 06:52:00 AM. Permalink
|
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
The grownups might get mad
Jonathan Gerwitz read my negative review of The Day the Earth Stood Still and emailed that he had posted his own review way back in October 2001.
by Donald Sensing, 8/05/2003 06:31:00 PM. Permalink
|
Minaret Of Freedom
"Calling the faithful to freedom"
An Islamic site I just found, Minaret of Freedom Institute that says, Our dual mission at the Minaret of Freedom Institute is to educate Muslims on the importance of liberty and free markets to a good society, while educating non-Muslims about the beliefs and contributions of Islam and the political realities of conflict between the two cultures. Further explanation: "A free market Muslim perspective on economics, democracy, terrorism and Middle East conflict." I am still looking it over, but I thought I'd pass the URL on. (hat tip: Flit.)
by Donald Sensing, 8/05/2003 05:28:00 PM. Permalink
|
You can pay me not to write, too!
Andrew Sullivan is taking the rest of the month off - after collecting $120,000 (yes, one hundred twenty thousand dollars!) in reader donations to keep him blogging.
'Scuse me, something seems awry here.
I, OTOH, am not taking the rest of the month off, but like Bill Hobbs, if you donate $120,000 to me I promise I will. In fact, donate a half million dollars and I'll take the rest of the year off!
And for ONE MILLION DOLLARS I will write obessesively about gay rights and the Roman Catholic Church AND take six months off per year! Just click either button below. Better yet, click both! Over and over! I mean, really!
by Donald Sensing, 8/05/2003 04:29:00 PM. Permalink
|
Is Michael Totten a closet John Bircher?
Okay, that is tongue in cheek. But consider that the John Birch Society has wanted the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US since in founding in 1958. And consider Michael's post today that ends with this sentence: Eventually, not this minute, but eventually, the UN needs to be reformed or evicted from the United States. Hmm, Michael, we hardly knew ye.
by Donald Sensing, 8/05/2003 04:08:00 PM. Permalink
|
Lie detectors don't work, says Glenn
But he's wrong, sort of
Glenn Reynolds posts that "lie detectors" don't work for security screening. And that's probably true because the exam process is ill suited for interrogation independent of related matters. But they can work just fine for criminal investigations. Although I am not a trained operator I do have some years experience as a member of US Army Criminal Investigation Command, which runs the Army's lie detector program, and learned quite a bit of the technical details from the head of the program.
Lie detectors are not actually "lie detectors." They do not detect lies. That's why no law-enforcement professional calls them "lie detectors." Their name is polygraph, from the Greek meaning simply, "many writer," because of the several squiggly lines that the write-heads make on the paper as it scrolls.
Polygraph examinations are not ends in themselves. They are merely one investigative tool of many. CID agents (and I assume other investigators, too) are trained to recognize the conditions of an investigation when a polygraph exam may be appropriate.
In Hollywood and TV Land, the suspect is hooked to the machine and answers the questions. Camera cut to dramatic shot of write heads jerking back and forth rapidly. Investigator snarls, "You're lying, you dirty bum!" It NEVER HAPPENS in real life. Here's why:
The primary purpose of administering a polygraph exam is to get the suspect to confess. Constitutionally, no one can be compelled to submit to a polygraph exam (that pesky 5th Amendment thing). All exams are voluntary. The suspect's lawyer is present if the suspect wishes. The suspect can stop answering questions at any time. Long before a polygraph exam is even considered by the investigators, they must have developed enough leads, evidence and other case information to put together a sensible list of questions. Unlike Hollywood portrayals, the questions are very carefully scripted in advance by more than one person familiar with the case. This is not a quick process. The examiner also has a big say in the wording and sequencing of the questions.
When the suspect comes in, the examiner explains the procedure and how the machine works. This is very important, because for the suspect to know how the machine works is a crucial part of making the process work. The objective is for the suspect to answer every question truthfully. If the suspect is convinced that the machine will reveal falsehood (more about that later) then he is more likely to tell the truth.
Clever investigators know that very often the issue is actually decided before the first question is actually asked. Very often they will actually show the suspect the list of questions before they begin. "Here's what we are going to ask you, and in what order." Always on the list is the question, of course: "Did you take the money from the cash drawer?" or whatever.
A very good explanation of the different types of exam techniques used and the math behind them is in "A Polygraph Technique for Evidentiary Applications."
Believe it or not, most people who have committed a crime are filled with shame and remorse over it, unless they are career criminals. While career criminals account for the majority of crimes, they do not account for the majority of criminals. It is amazing how many perpetrators want to confess the crime because of their shame and feelings of guilt. The polygraph is very effective to use in those cases because the test gives them the opportunity to unload. They want to tell the truth. The exam gives them a hook on which to hang their desire to unburden themselves.
Of course, investigative polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in a court. And a confession alone is not enough to get a conviction. That's why polygraph exams must be preceded by solid detective work. The evidence that results in the confession must be solid, and so must the evidence that proceeds from it.
Some people don't confess at all, naturally. They either are guilty and think they can get away with it or they are innocent and have nothing to confess. In either event, the exam will hopefully result in new leads that help the investigators bring the case to a close.
As I recall, about 40 percent of polygraph exams are exculpatory, requested by the suspect in order to clear his name. This is a really bad idea if the person actually did commit the crime, though, because he will still have to answer questions about the crime. And every question is a potential lead for further investigation.
For the past several years, polygraph machines have really been notebook computers with highly specialized software. These do not use the scrolling paper, but record the biometric inputs electronically. They can also record the verbal part of the exam, matching it precisely to the biometric results. The computers score the exam very quickly, containing in their databases perhaps 100,000 models for comparison.
In contrast, the old paper scrolls had to be scored manually by the examiner after the exam was finished. There is no way to do it in real time. The the scroll was sent to CID's Crime Records Center where two other examiners scored it independently for quality control. It was not a fast system.
There are only three evaluations of answers to questions. They are, "deception indicated," "no deception indicated" and "indeterminate." Each question is scored using multiple measurements of biological reactions to the questions. Biological reactions include respiration, pulse, blood volume, skin temperature changes, perspiration, blood pressure and others. The theory behind the procedure is that the examinee's reactions when answering inculpating questions will be greater than when answering non-inculpating ones. Hence, inculpating questions with the presence or lack of physiological reactions result in different kinds of leads for further investigation. But the questioning does not solve the crime unless the examinee confesses to it and the confession can be supported by evidence, as I explained above.
Until the advent of computerized exams, most questions were scored indeterminate, often as many as 60-70 percent of them. Computers have enabled that percentage to be reduced quite a bit, but last I heard it was still more than 50 percent. So the professionals using polygraphs exams know that they are no sure thing and remain highly subjective. That's why so much care is taken not to give them without good reason, not to give them prematurely and to construct the test as best as possible.
And the bottom line must always be borne in mind: polygraphs do not solve cases, they just help develop leads.
by Donald Sensing, 8/05/2003 03:53:00 PM. Permalink
|
Monday, August 04, 2003
As if being eaten alive weren't bad enough . . . .
Headline: Scientists: Alligators might transmit West Nile as well as birds
by Donald Sensing, 8/04/2003 07:49:00 AM. Permalink
|
Email attachments: to the bit bucket!
I have advised my less-computer-literate friends for years that when it comes to receiving email with attachments, there are only two categories they should treat with suspicion: emails from persons they don't know, and email from persons they do know.
I use MailWasher to screen my email. I can view text without downloading the message from the server. I can delete emails without downloading from the server, and best, "bounce" mail back to the sender so that the sender receives an e-mail saying my address is unknown.
I have mentioned before that because of my vocation, a fair number of people like to send forward me religious-related material. Very often it arrives as an attachment. My personal policy on attachments is clear: I never open attachments and I delete the email concerned without mercy.
Seems harsh, you say? Well, read this and you might well do the same thing.
by Donald Sensing, 8/04/2003 07:47:00 AM. Permalink
|
Speaking of marriage and divorce. . . .
My post entitled, "Gay marriages? Look at divorce laws first" has garnered a much higher number of comments than usual, most all of them thoughtful. Take a look! Here are some other thoughts relating to marriage.
Joe Katzman emailed me in June of last year that many men don't get married, or get married later than otherwise, because divorce laws are stacked against them.
But both men and women are more reluctant to marry than in earlier times. Nationwide, the marriage rate has plunged 43 percent since 1960. Instead of getting married, men and women are just living together, cohabitation having increased tenfold in the same period. According to a University of Chicago study, cohabitation has become the dominant way men and women begin their relationships, not courtship and marriage. More than half the men and women who do get married have already lived together.
The pattern of cohabitation is dangerous. Most women agree to cohabit thinking it will lead to marriage, but most men ask women to live with them so they donÂ’t have to marry them. Forty of every hundred cohabiting couples never marry one another. Repeated research shows that of the sixty cohabiting couples who do marry one another, forty-five divorce within ten years.
A lot of the discussion on marriage/gay marriagerecentlyy has focused on what marriage is for, that is, what does marriage accomplish. A broad consensus is that marriage, the union of a man and a woman, is the best social arrangement human societies have ever found for the raising of children.
The Time cover story of Aug. 21, 2000, reported, Danielle Crittenden, author of What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us, argues that women have set themselves up for disappointment, many putting off marriage until their 30s only to find themselves unskilled in the art of compatibility and surrounded by male peers looking over their Chardonnays at women in their 20s. "Modern people approach marriage like it's a Bosnia-Serbia negotiation. Marriage is no longer as attractive to men," she says. "No one's telling college girls it's easier to have kids in your 20s than in your 30s."
Michael Broder, a Philadelphia psychotherapist and author of The Art of Living Single, decries what he calls the "perfect-person problem," in which women refuse to engage unless they're immediately taken with a man, failing to give a relationship a chance to develop. "Few women can't tell you about someone they turned down, and I'm not talking about some grotesque monster," he says. "But there's the idea that there has to be this great degree of passion to get involved, which isn't always functional. So you have people saying things like, 'If I can't have my soul mate, I'd rather be alone.' And after that, I say, 'Well, you got your second choice." In evolutionary terms, marriage developed as the means by which women could guarantee to a specific man that the children she bore were his. In biological terms, men can sire hundreds of children in their lives, but this biological ability is limited by the fact that no one woman can keep pace. Siring kids by multiple women is the only way men can achieve high levels of reproduction, but women also have an extreme interest in the process, too.
Their is no adaptive/survival advantage for women in bearing children by men who are simply trying to sire as many children as possible. During the latter stages of pregnancy, women are disabled to some significant degree - perhaps not for office work, but certainly for food gathering and for protecting or caring for their other children. For a single mother, as our own culture's experience shows, child-raising is a resource-intensive, years-long business. Doing it alone is a marked adaptive disadvantage for single mothers and their children.
So the economics of sex evolved into a win-win deal: women agree to give men exclusive sexual rights and guaranteed paternity in exchange for their sexual loyalty and enduring assistance with child bearing and child raising. For the man, this arrangement lessens the number of potential children he can sire (although it can still be up to a dozen, at least), but it ensures that his kids are, well, his kids, not another man's. (In folk lore and literature, the cuckolded husband is one of the most pathetic figures there is). The only way women could guarantee paternity was to remain chaste until she and a man had agreed to this arrangement. For the woman, the man's promise of sexual loyalty to her meant that he would expend his labor and resources supporting her children, not another woman's.
Without guaranteed paternity, no man would ever have significant certainty that the child he was supporting carried his genes. Avoidance of genetic extinction is, many biologists say, the defining motive of human and animal behavior. That doesn't mean that every man or woman is inexorably impelled to have children - evolutionary biologists focus on groups, not individuals.
But what if women discontinued to guarantee paternity? What if the majority of men of a society discovered that they could enjoy sexual relations with women without promising sexual loyalty in return? Both have happened in America since the invention of The Pill. The impulse toward pre-marital chastity for women was always the fear of bearing a child alone. The Pill removed this fear.
Over the last four decades, men have discovered that marriage is only one way to enjoy sexual relations; visiting prostitutes was always another way but it has never been socally acceptable. Even today a man whose sexual activity is only or mostly with prostitutes is held in contempt by other men. The Pill enabled women to enjoy nearly risk-free intercourse, but unhappily also discover sex without betrothal is a highly unreliable way to gain a man's sexual and emotional commitment. As the old saying goes, "Why buy a cow when milk is so cheap?" If most women offer men sex apart from marriage, then the need for men to commit to sexual loyalty to a particular woman is greatly lessened, even eliminated. Then women look around and wonder why so many men they know all seem to be rotters who aren't interested in marriage.
Ultimately, though, both men and women discover that the married life is both easier and more sexually fulfilling than singleness, and ultimately most men and women discover that they want to bear children. Repeated studies show that married men and women enjoy sexual relations far more frequently than singles and no one has ever discovered a better arrangement for children than being raised by both natural parents. For most singles, the effort and care that must be taken in gaining another sex partner along with the devotion to avoiding pregnancy, are draining. Unfortunately, by the time they realize this and decide to do somethjing about it, they have lost too many youthful years. There is a big difference between marrying in early 20s and having kids in mid-20s, and doing both in one's 30s or even 40s, not only for the parents, but for the children.
by Donald Sensing, 8/04/2003 07:46:00 AM. Permalink
|
Movie iconoclasm
The Day the Earth Stood Still has not withstood the test of time
One of the cable channels recently showed the 1951 sci-fi classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still. The movie has been called "the first thinking person's science fiction movie." It was made during the second year of the Korean War and the formative years of the Cold War - the USSR detonated its second atomic bomb that year, and the United States was only a year away from testing the first hydrogen bomb. And of course, the world was only six years away from the abbatoir of World War II.
The drama is this: a large flying saucer lands in front of the Washington Monument. The military surrounds it with tanks and troops. A giant, humanoid robot emerges. We learn later its name is Gort. The special effects are very primitive by today's standards and probably were not been terribly convincing even in 1951. But that's okay - this isn't an effects movie. An alien man, Klaatu, comes out. He is human, or at least humanlike. He announces he wants to address all the nations of the world. American agrees but the Soviets refuse. Klaatu escapes from government minders, disguises himself as a businessman, and takes a boarding room in Washington to use as a base of operations.
The movie was fairly loosely based on a 1940 short story called, Farewell to the Master, by Harry Bates. Bates was one of the towering figures of science fiction in the 1930s and 1940s, a time known as the "Golden Age of Science Fiction." Amazingly, I found the text of Farewell to the Master online - you can read it here, and I heartily recommend it to you.
In the end, Klaatu makes it back to his spaceship. Gort is revealed an extremely powerful and destructive machine, equipped with a vaporizer ray, for example, as two soldiers guarding him discovered. Many critics say that Klaatu is a Christ figure - he comes from the heavens, is rejected by the authorities, hunted down and shot by soldiers. He resuscitates, then announces just before his ascension into the heavens that his purpose is to save humankind.
While the cinematic parallels are doubtless intentional, Klaatu as Christlike doesn't hold water. Klaatu is really an emissary of the "civilized" races of the universe, but he is revealed in the film's denouement as a galactic bully, a mere thug delivering a cruel ultimatum: either humankind stops making war or "the earth will be turned into a cinder."
Moreover, it is Gort, not Klaatu, who holds the earth's fate in his hands. Klaatu explains that his race created Gort and others like him to annihilate any people or any planet that breaks the peace. The robots' power is absolute and cannot be revoked, says Klaatu. The result is that they live in peace, and if humanity wishes to survive it must accept the dictatorship of the robots.
What Klaatu seems not to understand is that while he and his fellows live in peace, it is literally the peace of the grave. They are slaves. Their message to earth is simple: becomes slaves like us or die. This is not a message for the ages, and were it not for the movie's technical merits, it probably would have rightfully passed into oblivion long ago.
There is a high level of technical excellence in the movie. The use of light and shadow, always crucial in a black and white film, is very well done. Klaatu, played by Michael Rennie, is kindly and attractive - that is, until he makes his naked threats. The movie foreshadows the coming of Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD - the uneasy, dangerous equilibrium of neither peace nor war the USSR and USA found themselves in not many years later. Like thermonuclear weapons, Gort and the robots are weapons of mass destruction, only on a cosmic scale.
Unlike TDTESS's approximate contemporary, 1953's War of the Worlds, the alien's mission is dramatically presented as intriguing, even hopeful, until the end. It is not Klaatu or Gort who are aggressive, except for Gort's inexplicable vaporizing of the two guards. It is the human beings who use violence, who shoot Klaatu for no good reason. Klaatu is dramatically developed as the soul of friendliness; he even becomes a father figure to the son of the woman running the boarding house.
Yet the idea of machines having ultimate destructive power is one that hardly appeals to us. Only 32 years later Arnold Schwarzenegger would become a star by playing another version of Gort, but one somewhat less powerful. The apotheosis of machine-driven WMDs is excoriated in that movie's second sequel, Terminator 3.
Another thing that doesn't hold up today is the total absence of media at the spaceship's landing site. No reporters, no curious crowds, no tour buses. Once Klaatu appears and enters into conversation with the authorities, the tanks are withdrawn and the ship is secured by two lonely soldiers after a temporary wall is built around it. Klaatu is thus able to go in and out of his ship with ease, even when the authorities are hunting for him. Oh, please.
I see why the movie did endure, but I can't see why it still does. Its ending no longer shocks but repulses, and because the ending is the whole point of the story, the movie's merits don't carry the day. ( Farewell to the Master's ending is altogether different, and much better, btw.)
by Donald Sensing, 8/04/2003 07:44:00 AM. Permalink
|
Sunday, August 03, 2003
God, pain and suffering
This is the final installement of my series on theodicy - the justice of god - based on the book of Job. It is God's response to Job's indictment.
The previous posts are -
God and lethal tornados
My Buddy God
|
|
Essays |
Disclaimer |
Main Page |
My Bio |
|
Archives |
Backup Site
![[Powered by
Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
. . . . 
. . . .
. . . . 
