///
It has been said of the new Star Wars movie, that the Empire is the Conservative Right, and the Jedis are, well, something else. That doesn't work for me, actually. Looking through all six movies, what I see is that the Empire is a focused effort to seize power for its own reward, while the Jedi serve a greater cause, and the world at large.
So, what do I mean by Jedi businesmen? We live in a world of corporations and trade agreements. The United States and China do not compete militarily very much, but are active partners and rivals in world commerce. The dominant question for most Americans is how well they can take care of their families, financially. And the definition for success in most eyes depends on the standard of living attained.
Clearly, this is a superficial way of thinking, but because of the number of people involved and the pervasive impact money has on lives in general, it needs to be considered., Returning to the movies' as an example, see how often the Jedi offered a deal, in place of conflict? Obi-wan did this in the bar at Mos Eisley, and negotiated well with Han Solo. Luke made the offer to Jabba the Hutt before taking him down, and Qui-Gon made offers to resolve conflicts with the Trade Federation. It may be reasoned that the Jedi kept their word, and so a deal would have been as advertised, good for all parties. So in Jedi, to be a businessman depends on keeping your word and seeking advantage for all parties. Even in a suit and tie, if one keeps honor, one may be Jedi.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Homeland: Race Relations
.{}{}.
Almost two centuries after the nation’s founders wrote words promising equality for all men, the United States still had to address basic rights of minorities. Even with the Civil Rights Act, the clear disparity in how Race is addressed in the United States is one of the most dangerous long-term problems the country faces. Worse, the problem has grown in complexity, even as the initial issues are finally being settled.
Through advancements in the law, minorities enjoy the same rights as majority races, but that is not the same thing as equal conditions or opportunities. Unfortunately, this is not something which can be addressed with law, but which requires cultural adjustment.
During the first century of the United States, immigrants understood that to succeed they needed to assimilate. In the U.S., this should not mean losing the culture of their race, but it does mean accepting the American identity. Since the dominant culture has often expected participants to act in the fashion they found acceptable, there has been a clash about where the line is drawn; for many decades, immigrants were compelled to change their appearance and dress to conform to expectations, but now there has been a backlash, where minorities who attempt to succeed through excelling at the practices of the dominant culture are attacked and insulted for their success, as sell-outs. The determination of where to draw the line should depend on the individual’s decision and commitment, but there is a lot of work to do on that count.
Worse is the now-chronic problem of gangs. There is, simply put, no longer any race, neighborhood, or region of the country which is immune to gangs, and racist gangs are increasing in size, number, and violence. Predatory recruiting practices make families everywhere concerned, and the knowledge that a child may be attacked simply for their skin color, makes it that much harder to establish cooperation and trust between races. And that affects the nation's future at its core.
Almost two centuries after the nation’s founders wrote words promising equality for all men, the United States still had to address basic rights of minorities. Even with the Civil Rights Act, the clear disparity in how Race is addressed in the United States is one of the most dangerous long-term problems the country faces. Worse, the problem has grown in complexity, even as the initial issues are finally being settled.
Through advancements in the law, minorities enjoy the same rights as majority races, but that is not the same thing as equal conditions or opportunities. Unfortunately, this is not something which can be addressed with law, but which requires cultural adjustment.
During the first century of the United States, immigrants understood that to succeed they needed to assimilate. In the U.S., this should not mean losing the culture of their race, but it does mean accepting the American identity. Since the dominant culture has often expected participants to act in the fashion they found acceptable, there has been a clash about where the line is drawn; for many decades, immigrants were compelled to change their appearance and dress to conform to expectations, but now there has been a backlash, where minorities who attempt to succeed through excelling at the practices of the dominant culture are attacked and insulted for their success, as sell-outs. The determination of where to draw the line should depend on the individual’s decision and commitment, but there is a lot of work to do on that count.
Worse is the now-chronic problem of gangs. There is, simply put, no longer any race, neighborhood, or region of the country which is immune to gangs, and racist gangs are increasing in size, number, and violence. Predatory recruiting practices make families everywhere concerned, and the knowledge that a child may be attacked simply for their skin color, makes it that much harder to establish cooperation and trust between races. And that affects the nation's future at its core.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Homeland: The Dominant Culture
.[].
When the United States formed their Republic in the 18th Century, the notion of citizenship was restricted to White Land-Owning Men. In some measure, idealism was a healthy part of the new government, but self-service was certainly part as well. The advantage for the Americans, was that their own reluctance to advance their own ideals was no worse than the intransigence in Europe and Asia. It also helped that the Americans were willing to work together beyond state boundaries, where the other continents still fought wars over tariffs and trade disputes.
Whatever one thinks of the man as a politician, it is beyond debate that Andrew Jackson was a man of strong will and mind. The same fellow who invited the whole of the city of Washington to visit the White House upon his inaugeration, practically compelled the creation of a party to oppose the staid party of George Washington, and began the balancing act which has driven American politics ever since. The next upheaval came with Lincoln, the avatar of the party of true reform, the Republicans. While he meant to save the Union as his ultimate goal, Lincoln destroyed Slavery in the process, and began the forced acceptance of Equal Rights on a broader level.
Civil Rights in the United States has come a long way, but historically it is still very much in its infancy. To be male, white, and own property in the United States is still a clear advantage, culturally. Counter-culture is successful as a niche market, but the real money and power still comes from the same historical base. It’s why every President has been white, male, and a landowner. It’s why the image of American power still looks like something the founding fathers could have predicted. Overall, however, the dominance of power and money is becoming dependant on collaboration and mutual objectives by separate cultures.
When the United States formed their Republic in the 18th Century, the notion of citizenship was restricted to White Land-Owning Men. In some measure, idealism was a healthy part of the new government, but self-service was certainly part as well. The advantage for the Americans, was that their own reluctance to advance their own ideals was no worse than the intransigence in Europe and Asia. It also helped that the Americans were willing to work together beyond state boundaries, where the other continents still fought wars over tariffs and trade disputes.
Whatever one thinks of the man as a politician, it is beyond debate that Andrew Jackson was a man of strong will and mind. The same fellow who invited the whole of the city of Washington to visit the White House upon his inaugeration, practically compelled the creation of a party to oppose the staid party of George Washington, and began the balancing act which has driven American politics ever since. The next upheaval came with Lincoln, the avatar of the party of true reform, the Republicans. While he meant to save the Union as his ultimate goal, Lincoln destroyed Slavery in the process, and began the forced acceptance of Equal Rights on a broader level.
Civil Rights in the United States has come a long way, but historically it is still very much in its infancy. To be male, white, and own property in the United States is still a clear advantage, culturally. Counter-culture is successful as a niche market, but the real money and power still comes from the same historical base. It’s why every President has been white, male, and a landowner. It’s why the image of American power still looks like something the founding fathers could have predicted. Overall, however, the dominance of power and money is becoming dependant on collaboration and mutual objectives by separate cultures.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Homeland
[]_[]_[]
The United States is not understood by most of the world, which is why most of the world does not like or respect the United States. Unable to fathom American thinking, other nations find themselves applying their own perspective to our conditions, and when we do not do as they expect, they become suspicious and cynical of our stated goals and intentions, partly because of old U.S. history, and more often because of their own bitter experience.
In some ways, the United States is the senior partner for the planet. I say this not only because the United States has runs its country for the longest period under the same system of government (every nation on the planet besides the US, has changed its form of government since the US created its Constitution in 1783) , but because most nations which actually operate under the terms of their Constitution, modeled that Constitution after the U.S. Constitution. This means that nations are comparing an effectively short history of their own, to the relatively stable and trail-blazing standard of the Americans.
But it is also true that the United States is a new nation, in many ways. First off, while the U.S. form of government has enviable stability and success, as a people the Americans continue to grow and change. The most common thinking in 21st Century America was rare only a century ago, to say nothing of comparing the demographics of today’s average American to the colonial populace of 1781. The United States is also a strange bird to many other nations. The countries of antiquity are generally recognized by the nationality of their people - that is, the Greeks, Russians, Chinese and so forth are identified culturally much more than by their political functions. To most of the world, a country defined by its immigrants is beyond their comprehension. The United States, on the other hand, is constantly changing, as the races and nationalities of its people continue to change in proportion and interaction. It has been noted that only in America do Jews and Palestinians coexist peacefully, only in America do Serbs and Croats carry no feuds, only in America may people from both Taiwan and Beijing expect equal respect and treatment for their person.
After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Government created a new authority for National Defense; the Department of Homeland Security. It was a strange sounding name for many people, but it identified a new self-image for America - we are a homeland. But where other nations are homelands for a race or ethnicity, America is a homeland for an ideal. We are a collaborative nation, made up of many parts and members, each worthy in its own right and possessing not only a unique identity, but a special place in the functioning homeland of the United States.
Over the coming week, I intend to examine the character and interests of some of the major groups participating in our homeland. But make no mistake; the emerging identity of America in the 21st Century is already coalescing, and this must be the focus of government planning and direction.
The United States is not understood by most of the world, which is why most of the world does not like or respect the United States. Unable to fathom American thinking, other nations find themselves applying their own perspective to our conditions, and when we do not do as they expect, they become suspicious and cynical of our stated goals and intentions, partly because of old U.S. history, and more often because of their own bitter experience.
In some ways, the United States is the senior partner for the planet. I say this not only because the United States has runs its country for the longest period under the same system of government (every nation on the planet besides the US, has changed its form of government since the US created its Constitution in 1783) , but because most nations which actually operate under the terms of their Constitution, modeled that Constitution after the U.S. Constitution. This means that nations are comparing an effectively short history of their own, to the relatively stable and trail-blazing standard of the Americans.
But it is also true that the United States is a new nation, in many ways. First off, while the U.S. form of government has enviable stability and success, as a people the Americans continue to grow and change. The most common thinking in 21st Century America was rare only a century ago, to say nothing of comparing the demographics of today’s average American to the colonial populace of 1781. The United States is also a strange bird to many other nations. The countries of antiquity are generally recognized by the nationality of their people - that is, the Greeks, Russians, Chinese and so forth are identified culturally much more than by their political functions. To most of the world, a country defined by its immigrants is beyond their comprehension. The United States, on the other hand, is constantly changing, as the races and nationalities of its people continue to change in proportion and interaction. It has been noted that only in America do Jews and Palestinians coexist peacefully, only in America do Serbs and Croats carry no feuds, only in America may people from both Taiwan and Beijing expect equal respect and treatment for their person.
After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Government created a new authority for National Defense; the Department of Homeland Security. It was a strange sounding name for many people, but it identified a new self-image for America - we are a homeland. But where other nations are homelands for a race or ethnicity, America is a homeland for an ideal. We are a collaborative nation, made up of many parts and members, each worthy in its own right and possessing not only a unique identity, but a special place in the functioning homeland of the United States.
Over the coming week, I intend to examine the character and interests of some of the major groups participating in our homeland. But make no mistake; the emerging identity of America in the 21st Century is already coalescing, and this must be the focus of government planning and direction.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
The Call
( [] )
It's a strange thing, being a blogger. Sometimes I can almost respect the lives and work of journalists, if I could believe the majority of them were half as serious about the commitment to accuracy, consistency, and simply respecting the ideals of the nation in the pursuit of a story, as bloggers are. Since I first began to write on blogs last spring, I have occasionally been contacted by various people in various places, offering me insight into their positions and experience, on the condition that I respect their privacy and protect their anonymity. Fortunately, I have always been able to agree to this provision; I would never protect anyone guilty of a crime or advocating violence, nor anyone acting in opposition to the traditional responsibilities of the military, government, or similarly authoritative positions, but the people who contact me hold the same sort of ideals. Apparently, only Newsweek and the Washington Post hear from people whose sense of responsibility and conscience are lond dead. Friday evening, I got a call that fell into that no man's land between details which cannot be revealed, and something that screams to be told.
The Intelligence Community of the United States is something of a maze, an enigmatic mess of groups and agencies, even for many of the men and women who work in it. Without a prolonged discussion which would bore the tears out of most people, the Intel guys basically fall into five types: The Technical and Logistics crews who make the tools and supplies that make Operations possible; the Field agents of various classes who get the information, the Analysts who sort out the information and prepare reports, warnings, advisories, and recommendations, the Politicians who represent the agencies in their dealings with Congress and the President, and the Money guys, whose main plan is always to get the agency they work for a bigger budget and larger share of the power pie. You think the office politics is bad where you work, think for a few minutes about what this arrangement is like, especially given the incestuous habit some guys have of collecting Congressional patrons in exchange for, well, "inside" information, which used to lead to leaks whcih endangered the security, even the lives, of real agents, in a way the Plame affair scarcely imagines.
Anyway, I'm of an age where I know a few old friends who went one way when I went another, and as a result I got a call on Friday from an old bud who used to work in the field, and now gets to write reports for some of the higher-ups. Since he and I are pretty much law-&-order types, there's no juicy secrets here about the War on Terror. He doesn't get chatty about details, and I don't plan on breaking trust with anyone who not only carries a gun, but who has saved my butt in more than one way.
But in case you were wondering how well the War is really going, my buddy assures me of a few interesting points:
[] Coalition morale is high, for good reason.
[] Zarqawi may be alive and on the run. But his network is really, really messed up, however. One of his lieutenants has been nicknamed "Snitch-Life", which won't translate well to fascist terrorist, no matter how they try.
[] Osama bin Laden hasn't been heard from since Howard Dean was taken seriously for a good reason.
[] A new group may be expected to soon start claiming credit for "insurgent" attacks in Iraq. This represents new desperation, rather than organization.
[] Syria will have electrical problems in a number of places this summer.
[] Don't be surprised to see raids on Madrassahs in Jordan, Lebanon, even Iran in coming weeks.
IOW, we're winning, so expect a lot of whining from the Left.
And thanks guys, out in deep center.
It's a strange thing, being a blogger. Sometimes I can almost respect the lives and work of journalists, if I could believe the majority of them were half as serious about the commitment to accuracy, consistency, and simply respecting the ideals of the nation in the pursuit of a story, as bloggers are. Since I first began to write on blogs last spring, I have occasionally been contacted by various people in various places, offering me insight into their positions and experience, on the condition that I respect their privacy and protect their anonymity. Fortunately, I have always been able to agree to this provision; I would never protect anyone guilty of a crime or advocating violence, nor anyone acting in opposition to the traditional responsibilities of the military, government, or similarly authoritative positions, but the people who contact me hold the same sort of ideals. Apparently, only Newsweek and the Washington Post hear from people whose sense of responsibility and conscience are lond dead. Friday evening, I got a call that fell into that no man's land between details which cannot be revealed, and something that screams to be told.
The Intelligence Community of the United States is something of a maze, an enigmatic mess of groups and agencies, even for many of the men and women who work in it. Without a prolonged discussion which would bore the tears out of most people, the Intel guys basically fall into five types: The Technical and Logistics crews who make the tools and supplies that make Operations possible; the Field agents of various classes who get the information, the Analysts who sort out the information and prepare reports, warnings, advisories, and recommendations, the Politicians who represent the agencies in their dealings with Congress and the President, and the Money guys, whose main plan is always to get the agency they work for a bigger budget and larger share of the power pie. You think the office politics is bad where you work, think for a few minutes about what this arrangement is like, especially given the incestuous habit some guys have of collecting Congressional patrons in exchange for, well, "inside" information, which used to lead to leaks whcih endangered the security, even the lives, of real agents, in a way the Plame affair scarcely imagines.
Anyway, I'm of an age where I know a few old friends who went one way when I went another, and as a result I got a call on Friday from an old bud who used to work in the field, and now gets to write reports for some of the higher-ups. Since he and I are pretty much law-&-order types, there's no juicy secrets here about the War on Terror. He doesn't get chatty about details, and I don't plan on breaking trust with anyone who not only carries a gun, but who has saved my butt in more than one way.
But in case you were wondering how well the War is really going, my buddy assures me of a few interesting points:
[] Coalition morale is high, for good reason.
[] Zarqawi may be alive and on the run. But his network is really, really messed up, however. One of his lieutenants has been nicknamed "Snitch-Life", which won't translate well to fascist terrorist, no matter how they try.
[] Osama bin Laden hasn't been heard from since Howard Dean was taken seriously for a good reason.
[] A new group may be expected to soon start claiming credit for "insurgent" attacks in Iraq. This represents new desperation, rather than organization.
[] Syria will have electrical problems in a number of places this summer.
[] Don't be surprised to see raids on Madrassahs in Jordan, Lebanon, even Iran in coming weeks.
IOW, we're winning, so expect a lot of whining from the Left.
And thanks guys, out in deep center.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Munderings About Taxes
[[[]]]
It’s pretty hard, trying to make sense of Liberal ideas. Not surprising to me, given how poorly Liberal ideas have performed historically. Especially where Money is concerned. After all, in 21st Century terms, American Liberalism is about Class Warfare, the notion that simply succeeding is wrong and should be punished. The whole tax structure in the United States is about hitting people harder, the better they do for themselves. If anyone thinks this makes sense, Howard Dean is counting on your vote. For anyone as unhappy with the notion of freedom only for people running on envy and bitterness as I am, this issue needs a closer look.
Nobody wants to be poor. And most of us are sensitive to the plight of the truly needy. But the truly needy are not defined by people complaining because they don’t want to work a job like regular people, who complain because the house they own isn’t nice enough to please them, or they feel entitled not to the car they have, but to a new car whenever they feel like it. It’s not a right to demand luxury, anymore than we owe cable television to prison inmates, or tax benefits to fringe groups simply for being a minority. It’s also not a right, to hate people simply for having money. The thing is, the “hate the rich” act has been around for a long time. People tend to miss the distinction between the American and French Revolutions; the American Revolution was begun in large part by businessmen who wanted the British Government to just let them live their lives and treat them as equals. The French Revolution was begun mostly by starving peasants, so enraged at the Aristocracy that they simply murdered them wholesale; all the myth about Napoleon was more about the tyrannic subversion of the people by the more unscrupulous manipulators in their midst. The American Revolution is about the Republican Party really, while the French Revolution is about the Democrats.
This is not to say that the Republicans have been pure and true to their promises at all things; ask any Libertarian about the Federal deficit and the last few Appropriations bills, and you’ll get a lot of reaction. But ever since John Kennedy was President, the Democrats have begun that long, deep slide into absolute abrogation of their duties, and never more than in a basic understanding of Economics.
A lot of commentors like to claim that a country’s money should be handled the same way one would handle a family’s money, but personally I’m not spending family money on armed forces, roads, and vaccine development for the Avian flu, so that comparison doesn’t really hold up. National revenue comes from taxes for the most part, and the question naturally should be focused on how much is the right amount. The latest budget is, if my memory is right, $2,600,000,000,000.00 - that’s one year of federal spending, folks. Dividing that by 300 million citizens would be a hefty share for each person, but that doesn’t recognize that we’re really talking about only 145 million taxpayers, so the punch is really more than twice as hard. And that does not include state, county, local, sales, and school taxes.
It’s time for us all to pay much closer attention to how much money is coming out of our paychecks, and where it’s going. Now may not be a good time to mention that tax money pays for not only Presidential candidates, but other federal office seekers as well.
It’s pretty hard, trying to make sense of Liberal ideas. Not surprising to me, given how poorly Liberal ideas have performed historically. Especially where Money is concerned. After all, in 21st Century terms, American Liberalism is about Class Warfare, the notion that simply succeeding is wrong and should be punished. The whole tax structure in the United States is about hitting people harder, the better they do for themselves. If anyone thinks this makes sense, Howard Dean is counting on your vote. For anyone as unhappy with the notion of freedom only for people running on envy and bitterness as I am, this issue needs a closer look.
Nobody wants to be poor. And most of us are sensitive to the plight of the truly needy. But the truly needy are not defined by people complaining because they don’t want to work a job like regular people, who complain because the house they own isn’t nice enough to please them, or they feel entitled not to the car they have, but to a new car whenever they feel like it. It’s not a right to demand luxury, anymore than we owe cable television to prison inmates, or tax benefits to fringe groups simply for being a minority. It’s also not a right, to hate people simply for having money. The thing is, the “hate the rich” act has been around for a long time. People tend to miss the distinction between the American and French Revolutions; the American Revolution was begun in large part by businessmen who wanted the British Government to just let them live their lives and treat them as equals. The French Revolution was begun mostly by starving peasants, so enraged at the Aristocracy that they simply murdered them wholesale; all the myth about Napoleon was more about the tyrannic subversion of the people by the more unscrupulous manipulators in their midst. The American Revolution is about the Republican Party really, while the French Revolution is about the Democrats.
This is not to say that the Republicans have been pure and true to their promises at all things; ask any Libertarian about the Federal deficit and the last few Appropriations bills, and you’ll get a lot of reaction. But ever since John Kennedy was President, the Democrats have begun that long, deep slide into absolute abrogation of their duties, and never more than in a basic understanding of Economics.
A lot of commentors like to claim that a country’s money should be handled the same way one would handle a family’s money, but personally I’m not spending family money on armed forces, roads, and vaccine development for the Avian flu, so that comparison doesn’t really hold up. National revenue comes from taxes for the most part, and the question naturally should be focused on how much is the right amount. The latest budget is, if my memory is right, $2,600,000,000,000.00 - that’s one year of federal spending, folks. Dividing that by 300 million citizens would be a hefty share for each person, but that doesn’t recognize that we’re really talking about only 145 million taxpayers, so the punch is really more than twice as hard. And that does not include state, county, local, sales, and school taxes.
It’s time for us all to pay much closer attention to how much money is coming out of our paychecks, and where it’s going. Now may not be a good time to mention that tax money pays for not only Presidential candidates, but other federal office seekers as well.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
No Kings In Asia
_-_-_
Jim Hoagland has written an interesting article for The Washington Post, but necessarily the way he intended. Mr. Hoagland’s article, titled “Whose Asian Century?”, examines the race between China and India for economic dominance in Asia. This is an interesting thought, but I found reason to question Mr. Hoagland, using his very reasons in application to his column. I found a number of statements which don’t bear up well to inspection.
Mr. Hoagland began by saying of China, “empires unravel, usually from within.” However, that was not the case of England, which became a Constitutional Republic of sorts, though not as we Americans call it. And as for Egypt, Rome, France, Russia, and the original Chinese Empires? They fell after costly wars against nations intent on invading/destroying them. Mr. Hoagland’s warning only becomes salient, if we find a military expedition headed in the direction of Beijing.
Defending the claim that India, not China, is headed for regional supremacy in commerce and industry, Hoagland writes “Current straight-line projections of China's rise to power neglect developments and adjustments in other Asian countries, particularly in the region's two great democracies, India and Japan.”
OK, first off: Does anybody else here see the difficulty in putting India and Japan on the same page, in strategic terms, or of comparing either of these countries to the United States, politically? There’s a reason neither Japan nor India has met its promise in the past half-century, and their governments have a lot to do with it. In Japan, there’s not so much a democracy as an oligarchy, a rigidly controlled network or ministries which approve every tissue for a sneeze, almost. Far too regulated and controlled to react to spontaneous opportunities, or to give entrepreneurs real freedom to explore new tactics. As for India, they’re a Democracy all right, in the same way Greece is a Democracy. There’s practically no order at all, which scares off a lot of investment because there is no regulation for critical industries. Ask the Wharton School of Business and they’ll assure you yes, they study Japan and India, but they do not envy them.
Hoagland then makes a statement I might have agreed with 15 years ago, but not now: “Politically, China is ruled by Leninists who must maintain the status quo. Militarily it relies on a large, underequipped land army. Economically it has adapted and mastered Henry Ford's assembly line on a continental scale. Financially it hordes its cash, regulates its markets with zeal and defensively uses fiscal policy to prevent mass upheaval.” All of those statements are true at one level, but they fail to understand the critical creation of Autonomous Precincts. These are largely ignored by Western observers, because there is no true political or military autonomy in those regions, and in places like Nepal “autonomy” is no more than a big lie. But in Canton and certain other precincts, especially the Hong Kong and Macau regions, the business climate is slowly changing to allow some real innovation. Chinese leaders, whether Manchu warlords or Wen Jiabao’s committees of industry, like to have their perks, and China rewards those who bring in capital investment. It’s not enough to make China a global power in commerce, but it is an underestimated factor.
Asia is more than China; Mr. Hoagland got that much right. But he has a lot more to learn, before handing crowns to Japan or India.
Jim Hoagland has written an interesting article for The Washington Post, but necessarily the way he intended. Mr. Hoagland’s article, titled “Whose Asian Century?”, examines the race between China and India for economic dominance in Asia. This is an interesting thought, but I found reason to question Mr. Hoagland, using his very reasons in application to his column. I found a number of statements which don’t bear up well to inspection.
Mr. Hoagland began by saying of China, “empires unravel, usually from within.” However, that was not the case of England, which became a Constitutional Republic of sorts, though not as we Americans call it. And as for Egypt, Rome, France, Russia, and the original Chinese Empires? They fell after costly wars against nations intent on invading/destroying them. Mr. Hoagland’s warning only becomes salient, if we find a military expedition headed in the direction of Beijing.
Defending the claim that India, not China, is headed for regional supremacy in commerce and industry, Hoagland writes “Current straight-line projections of China's rise to power neglect developments and adjustments in other Asian countries, particularly in the region's two great democracies, India and Japan.”
OK, first off: Does anybody else here see the difficulty in putting India and Japan on the same page, in strategic terms, or of comparing either of these countries to the United States, politically? There’s a reason neither Japan nor India has met its promise in the past half-century, and their governments have a lot to do with it. In Japan, there’s not so much a democracy as an oligarchy, a rigidly controlled network or ministries which approve every tissue for a sneeze, almost. Far too regulated and controlled to react to spontaneous opportunities, or to give entrepreneurs real freedom to explore new tactics. As for India, they’re a Democracy all right, in the same way Greece is a Democracy. There’s practically no order at all, which scares off a lot of investment because there is no regulation for critical industries. Ask the Wharton School of Business and they’ll assure you yes, they study Japan and India, but they do not envy them.
Hoagland then makes a statement I might have agreed with 15 years ago, but not now: “Politically, China is ruled by Leninists who must maintain the status quo. Militarily it relies on a large, underequipped land army. Economically it has adapted and mastered Henry Ford's assembly line on a continental scale. Financially it hordes its cash, regulates its markets with zeal and defensively uses fiscal policy to prevent mass upheaval.” All of those statements are true at one level, but they fail to understand the critical creation of Autonomous Precincts. These are largely ignored by Western observers, because there is no true political or military autonomy in those regions, and in places like Nepal “autonomy” is no more than a big lie. But in Canton and certain other precincts, especially the Hong Kong and Macau regions, the business climate is slowly changing to allow some real innovation. Chinese leaders, whether Manchu warlords or Wen Jiabao’s committees of industry, like to have their perks, and China rewards those who bring in capital investment. It’s not enough to make China a global power in commerce, but it is an underestimated factor.
Asia is more than China; Mr. Hoagland got that much right. But he has a lot more to learn, before handing crowns to Japan or India.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
More About the Christian Identity
[][][]
In my last entry, I seem to have confused some people on the issue of who goes to heaven, and how. Good, this is a complex point, and one which should be examined through discussion.
Make no mistake, I am committed to Christ, and I whole-heartedly recommend the faith to anyone seeking meaning and purpose to their existence. But a lot of Christians seem to be cultural Christians, accepting a version that may well be different form the role Christ meant for us, and there I find it necessary to discuss whom we are meant to be, as well as a glimpse at some of Heaven’s more surprising tenants.
First the basic question; is it necessary to be a Christian in order to enter Heaven? The answer seems easy, until you think about it.
First, who is Jesus Christ? Jesus said plainly, that if you know Him you know the Father. He was, is, and ever will be God, Who chose of His own volition and love to walk among us, as one of us. Accordingly, it is impossible to reject Christ yet love God. It would be easier to demand a life without oxygen, yet demand no complications in breathing.
The tricky part, however, is when we deal with the matter of ‘rejecting’ Christ. There are those people who clearly hate Christ, but many who do not choose to become Christians, do so for reasons which are hard to criticize and more, recognizing that God is merciful and seeks to show compassion to all of us, means that we must be very, very slow to consider a person lost to God.
The Bible provides clues to how people can get to Heaven by less-traveled ways. In the Old Testament, a number of non-Jews are portrayed in a light which suggests God was pleased with them, including the Pharoah whom Joseph served, Nebuchadnezzar, the Queen of Sheba who knew Solomon, and King Xerxes. The fact that God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham also shows a commitment on God’s side, which is not conditional on Man’s behavior, a point which needs to be understood and reinforced. Paul wrote that we Christians were grafted onto the vine of that promise, not supplanting it but growing alongside it. Also, it needs to be understood that God is not a pawn for technicalities; the thief on the cross was never baptized but was truly saved anyway, as one obvious example. If God means to grant heaven to any person, there is no man qualified to deny that act.
The rapture also shows a signal to the matter. If we Christians are to be raptured as it seems, and so receive our measure at the Bema seat, then what of the passage in Revelation which says that men would be judged by what they did. If a man who does not become a Christian in this mortal life has no hope, then why go through the pretense of a judgment; all remaining after the Rapture would be lost! Also, we see in Scripture many times the promise that we will reign with Christ. Reign over whom, if the only people in Heaven are Christians?
Thus, we hit an impasse. I cannot agree that a man may enter Heaven on his works, because even if a man could live a life with no errors or mistakes, the strength and ability to do good comes only from God, and so the man would earn no credit for himself as a result of his works. And if Christ is not the Savior of the entire world, why would God have made such an effort and why would He bear such pain? That cannot be correct, either.
Here is what seems right to me, with the caution that I speak only from my own understanding, which is flawed as all human minds are to some degree: We all must at some point consider Christ and the Gospel, and make our choice. Some will reject Him totally, but I do not think that will be the case for all, nor even most. Some will accept Him fully, and their faith will shine brightly indeed. These are the elders we see in Revelation, and the people whose seats will be in the presence of God, not only for their faith and pure spirit, but because of the natural desire everyone has to be with people like themselves. Those who follow God the most closely will desire Him the most, and God will delight in those who, He knows the best through their choice.
The rest of us will all accept Christ, in what means we are able. The Christian will see Him as Lord, the Jew (eventually) as Messiah, and all the world will come to know Him by His right and worth. And this will determine our place and course in the world to come. We who are Christians in this world, are called to spread the Gospel, by word but more by deed, showing the love and hope we claim to everyone, freely confessing that all we know for goodness comes from Jesus, but never condemning anyone for their doubt and reluctance. After all, during Christ’s time on Earth, Peter denied Him, his earthly brother James did not believe His divinity, and Thomas was a cynic indeed. Yet all of them came around in their time, just as did Paul, who spent months if not years persecuting Christians and denying the essential truths. Who is to say where the life roads may lead for those who now say they cannot believe? We must serve as we are able, and bless as we have ourselves been blessed.
The answer is imperfect, but in this life all such answers must be.
In my last entry, I seem to have confused some people on the issue of who goes to heaven, and how. Good, this is a complex point, and one which should be examined through discussion.
Make no mistake, I am committed to Christ, and I whole-heartedly recommend the faith to anyone seeking meaning and purpose to their existence. But a lot of Christians seem to be cultural Christians, accepting a version that may well be different form the role Christ meant for us, and there I find it necessary to discuss whom we are meant to be, as well as a glimpse at some of Heaven’s more surprising tenants.
First the basic question; is it necessary to be a Christian in order to enter Heaven? The answer seems easy, until you think about it.
First, who is Jesus Christ? Jesus said plainly, that if you know Him you know the Father. He was, is, and ever will be God, Who chose of His own volition and love to walk among us, as one of us. Accordingly, it is impossible to reject Christ yet love God. It would be easier to demand a life without oxygen, yet demand no complications in breathing.
The tricky part, however, is when we deal with the matter of ‘rejecting’ Christ. There are those people who clearly hate Christ, but many who do not choose to become Christians, do so for reasons which are hard to criticize and more, recognizing that God is merciful and seeks to show compassion to all of us, means that we must be very, very slow to consider a person lost to God.
The Bible provides clues to how people can get to Heaven by less-traveled ways. In the Old Testament, a number of non-Jews are portrayed in a light which suggests God was pleased with them, including the Pharoah whom Joseph served, Nebuchadnezzar, the Queen of Sheba who knew Solomon, and King Xerxes. The fact that God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham also shows a commitment on God’s side, which is not conditional on Man’s behavior, a point which needs to be understood and reinforced. Paul wrote that we Christians were grafted onto the vine of that promise, not supplanting it but growing alongside it. Also, it needs to be understood that God is not a pawn for technicalities; the thief on the cross was never baptized but was truly saved anyway, as one obvious example. If God means to grant heaven to any person, there is no man qualified to deny that act.
The rapture also shows a signal to the matter. If we Christians are to be raptured as it seems, and so receive our measure at the Bema seat, then what of the passage in Revelation which says that men would be judged by what they did. If a man who does not become a Christian in this mortal life has no hope, then why go through the pretense of a judgment; all remaining after the Rapture would be lost! Also, we see in Scripture many times the promise that we will reign with Christ. Reign over whom, if the only people in Heaven are Christians?
Thus, we hit an impasse. I cannot agree that a man may enter Heaven on his works, because even if a man could live a life with no errors or mistakes, the strength and ability to do good comes only from God, and so the man would earn no credit for himself as a result of his works. And if Christ is not the Savior of the entire world, why would God have made such an effort and why would He bear such pain? That cannot be correct, either.
Here is what seems right to me, with the caution that I speak only from my own understanding, which is flawed as all human minds are to some degree: We all must at some point consider Christ and the Gospel, and make our choice. Some will reject Him totally, but I do not think that will be the case for all, nor even most. Some will accept Him fully, and their faith will shine brightly indeed. These are the elders we see in Revelation, and the people whose seats will be in the presence of God, not only for their faith and pure spirit, but because of the natural desire everyone has to be with people like themselves. Those who follow God the most closely will desire Him the most, and God will delight in those who, He knows the best through their choice.
The rest of us will all accept Christ, in what means we are able. The Christian will see Him as Lord, the Jew (eventually) as Messiah, and all the world will come to know Him by His right and worth. And this will determine our place and course in the world to come. We who are Christians in this world, are called to spread the Gospel, by word but more by deed, showing the love and hope we claim to everyone, freely confessing that all we know for goodness comes from Jesus, but never condemning anyone for their doubt and reluctance. After all, during Christ’s time on Earth, Peter denied Him, his earthly brother James did not believe His divinity, and Thomas was a cynic indeed. Yet all of them came around in their time, just as did Paul, who spent months if not years persecuting Christians and denying the essential truths. Who is to say where the life roads may lead for those who now say they cannot believe? We must serve as we are able, and bless as we have ourselves been blessed.
The answer is imperfect, but in this life all such answers must be.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The Christian Role In Heaven
[][][][][][][]
A friend of mine who does not happen to be Christian, has asked about the Christian view of where people go if they are not Christian. The question is sticky, since it suggests a general answer would be applicable to every individual person, but a few things should be considered as indicators of God's will, I think.
One thing that people trip over is the line from Jesus, saying "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). A lot of exclusionists try to use that verse and others like it, to say that everyone must adopt their specific doctrine, or be condemned. I think that has been largely misunderstood, and to great pain. Rather than argue from my own doctrinal understanding (which is biased on its face), I think a look at context is vital.
Let's assume, arguendo, that Jesus was properly quoted, and meant exactly what He said, and more was exactly right. Note that in the 14th Chapter of John, Jesus was meeting with His disciples for the last time, in the upper room where they had the Last Supper. This statement then, was to His disciples, personally given and face to face. The first verse of that Chapter reads "Do not let your hearts be troubled", and Jesus also specificaly promised them that "I am going there to prepare a place for you". This talk was not a warning but a word of hope and comfort.
So how does that verse get raised? Jesus promised His disciples "You know the way to the place where I am going.". The disciples naturally were worried that they would fail this point, so Thomas (the famous doubter, remember) asked "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?". It was to this question that Jesus answered "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Jesus was not warning the people that they'd better follow His slightest suggestion perfectly or be burned; He was assuring His followers that they would do as He did, and go where He goes, because they could not fail, having chosen the good.
In that context, the Gospel shows the meaning of its hope and love. Now, from that Scripture, I read the matter thus:
There is bad news and good news for us all. Some think that certain words or signs will be enough to impress God, but God makes it clear that to go where the Father reigns, we must do as He wills, and that example is found in Christ, who loved, taught, shared, and gave freely. Those who do as Christ did, will not fail to receive their reward
This does not mean that sin is a lie, or that our works will be sufficient. The truth is, we all owe better than we do, no matter how much we do, so anyone who depends on their own strength or ability will fail. This is apparent, actually, even in the world we know. No matter how strong or healthy a man is, he will grow feeble and die. No matter how intelligent a man is, he will nevere know all there is to know, nor even all that is important. No matter how wealthy a man is, he will die with nothing. The only things a man may leave after himself are his family, his friends, and his work. It is no coincidence that all of those things can succeed only in cooperation with other people.
So it is with the spirit. We can never be pure enough, strong enough, or accomplish enough to pay our way. The good news is, that is not at all necessary.
The character of God is such, that none of us can say for certain that any person, no matter his reputation, was consigned to hell. We can know, however, the sort of people who are received in Heaven, and it is a great number. It is Heaven, to be clear, that we should focus on, not as a goal to be earned and acquired, but as a gift God has prepared for us.
Throughout History, Man has only known of Christ since His life on earth, and even then only in those places where Christians have faithfully spread the Gospel. A simple consideration of how many billions of people have lived since the first human, knowing that God is the Father and Creator of every one of them, can only mean that the Father has a plan for hope and glory for each of us.
This does not mean that everyone goes to Heaven, but it also does not mean that only those who carry the name "Christian" will be in Heaven. This is apparent, I think, by the covenant God made with the Jewish people. Since I do not believe God makes errors, it seems to me that God intended His covenant with Abraham to be a signal to all people, that a direct and blessed relationship with God is not only possible, but intended by His perfect will.
So, what is the meaning of Christianity? If it is not a special covenant by which all men may be saved, why are we told this in Scripture? What are we meant to be and do, we who call Jesus 'Lord'?
Two books in the New Testament address this well, I think. In Hebrews, it is written "because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood" (Hebrews 7:24. In 1 Peter, it is written "you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5) and "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9).
Look at how Jesus lived on Earth; not as a moody tyrant, but among the people, helping and teaching by word and example. Is it surprising to see that His disciples are called to the same work?
Look to the Jewish Rabbis and the Catholic Priests today. Are they not set apart by every aspect of their person? They act, speak, even dress in a manner that is unique. Yet, none of them has the position to settle civil or criminal disputes (except where one is asked to do so by both parties in certain cases as a matter of respected wisdom, not by fiat), none of them issues laws to command people or compel behavior, none of them uses physical or coercive force in their teaching. The way of the priest, then, is one of example and leadership, of the accomplishment of good through cooperation and community. We are meant, here on Earth and again in Heaven, to do the work first, that others may follow a good example. The Christian in Heaven then, is tasked to show the light of Heaven, and the crowns spoken of in Revelation are no more or less than the spirit which delights in holy service.
Is there rank in Heaven? Save that God reigns, I do not know, nor care. But since we who go to Heaven will go from an imperfect and corruptible life to a perfect and incorruptible essence, we shall hope for examples of the way there, just as a man looks for good light to see his way.
A friend of mine who does not happen to be Christian, has asked about the Christian view of where people go if they are not Christian. The question is sticky, since it suggests a general answer would be applicable to every individual person, but a few things should be considered as indicators of God's will, I think.
One thing that people trip over is the line from Jesus, saying "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). A lot of exclusionists try to use that verse and others like it, to say that everyone must adopt their specific doctrine, or be condemned. I think that has been largely misunderstood, and to great pain. Rather than argue from my own doctrinal understanding (which is biased on its face), I think a look at context is vital.
Let's assume, arguendo, that Jesus was properly quoted, and meant exactly what He said, and more was exactly right. Note that in the 14th Chapter of John, Jesus was meeting with His disciples for the last time, in the upper room where they had the Last Supper. This statement then, was to His disciples, personally given and face to face. The first verse of that Chapter reads "Do not let your hearts be troubled", and Jesus also specificaly promised them that "I am going there to prepare a place for you". This talk was not a warning but a word of hope and comfort.
So how does that verse get raised? Jesus promised His disciples "You know the way to the place where I am going.". The disciples naturally were worried that they would fail this point, so Thomas (the famous doubter, remember) asked "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?". It was to this question that Jesus answered "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Jesus was not warning the people that they'd better follow His slightest suggestion perfectly or be burned; He was assuring His followers that they would do as He did, and go where He goes, because they could not fail, having chosen the good.
In that context, the Gospel shows the meaning of its hope and love. Now, from that Scripture, I read the matter thus:
There is bad news and good news for us all. Some think that certain words or signs will be enough to impress God, but God makes it clear that to go where the Father reigns, we must do as He wills, and that example is found in Christ, who loved, taught, shared, and gave freely. Those who do as Christ did, will not fail to receive their reward
This does not mean that sin is a lie, or that our works will be sufficient. The truth is, we all owe better than we do, no matter how much we do, so anyone who depends on their own strength or ability will fail. This is apparent, actually, even in the world we know. No matter how strong or healthy a man is, he will grow feeble and die. No matter how intelligent a man is, he will nevere know all there is to know, nor even all that is important. No matter how wealthy a man is, he will die with nothing. The only things a man may leave after himself are his family, his friends, and his work. It is no coincidence that all of those things can succeed only in cooperation with other people.
So it is with the spirit. We can never be pure enough, strong enough, or accomplish enough to pay our way. The good news is, that is not at all necessary.
The character of God is such, that none of us can say for certain that any person, no matter his reputation, was consigned to hell. We can know, however, the sort of people who are received in Heaven, and it is a great number. It is Heaven, to be clear, that we should focus on, not as a goal to be earned and acquired, but as a gift God has prepared for us.
Throughout History, Man has only known of Christ since His life on earth, and even then only in those places where Christians have faithfully spread the Gospel. A simple consideration of how many billions of people have lived since the first human, knowing that God is the Father and Creator of every one of them, can only mean that the Father has a plan for hope and glory for each of us.
This does not mean that everyone goes to Heaven, but it also does not mean that only those who carry the name "Christian" will be in Heaven. This is apparent, I think, by the covenant God made with the Jewish people. Since I do not believe God makes errors, it seems to me that God intended His covenant with Abraham to be a signal to all people, that a direct and blessed relationship with God is not only possible, but intended by His perfect will.
So, what is the meaning of Christianity? If it is not a special covenant by which all men may be saved, why are we told this in Scripture? What are we meant to be and do, we who call Jesus 'Lord'?
Two books in the New Testament address this well, I think. In Hebrews, it is written "because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood" (Hebrews 7:24. In 1 Peter, it is written "you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5) and "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9).
Look at how Jesus lived on Earth; not as a moody tyrant, but among the people, helping and teaching by word and example. Is it surprising to see that His disciples are called to the same work?
Look to the Jewish Rabbis and the Catholic Priests today. Are they not set apart by every aspect of their person? They act, speak, even dress in a manner that is unique. Yet, none of them has the position to settle civil or criminal disputes (except where one is asked to do so by both parties in certain cases as a matter of respected wisdom, not by fiat), none of them issues laws to command people or compel behavior, none of them uses physical or coercive force in their teaching. The way of the priest, then, is one of example and leadership, of the accomplishment of good through cooperation and community. We are meant, here on Earth and again in Heaven, to do the work first, that others may follow a good example. The Christian in Heaven then, is tasked to show the light of Heaven, and the crowns spoken of in Revelation are no more or less than the spirit which delights in holy service.
Is there rank in Heaven? Save that God reigns, I do not know, nor care. But since we who go to Heaven will go from an imperfect and corruptible life to a perfect and incorruptible essence, we shall hope for examples of the way there, just as a man looks for good light to see his way.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
The Canyon In New York
<><>
John Burns, writing for the New York Times, has an interesting, if sadly predictable, perspective on Iraq. In an article titled “Iraq’s Ho Chi Minh Trail”, Burns attempts once again to connect the War in Iraq to the conflict in Vietnam. As usuall, the analogy only holds if one’s attention is very selective, and crucial differences are ignored.
Burns begins with a short comment about the search for Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, implying that the Americans have made his capture a top goal, and commenting that even if he is caught, this will not end the insurrection, and indeed suggests that the capture of Saddam Hussein was of little value in strategy or consequence. This is laughable, of course, since it assumes that Iraq would have acted the same over the past 18 months if Saddam had been running loose, as it has in fact. It seems to me that such things as the free elections, the impressive rise in private retail businesses in Iraq, the turnover of domestic security operations in Iraq to Iraqi officers, would not be nearly as likely to have happened, were the murderous former dictator still at large.
Burns shows his flaws early, even in the title of his column. It is a poor history student indeed, who does not understand the difference between the Ho Chi Minh trail in Southeast Asia, which was never seriously intercepted by U.S. forces, and the terrorist incursion routes, which are being fought by Coalition forces.
Mr, Burns writes as if U.S. morale is low, when in fact it is strong and rising, with the clear desperation of terrorists cpparent in their tactics and targets. Some of the accounts by the media bordered on the ludicrous. Burns reported a Washington Post account, of “rebels lying on their backs in a crawl space beneath the concrete floor of a house, blasting marines above them with bullets designed to penetrate tanks.” Leaving aside the notion that a foreigner who sneaks into Iraq for the purpose of killing Iraqi civilians as well as Coalition forces should be described as a “rebel” rather than the more accurate “terrorist”, anyone mildly familiar with Physics would question the notion that bullets have been made which “penetrate tanks”; The divorce between these MSM agents and the truth is plainly evident.
A crack was made some time ago in New York’s Media, which became a ditch and now a canyon. And people like Burns just keep digging.
John Burns, writing for the New York Times, has an interesting, if sadly predictable, perspective on Iraq. In an article titled “Iraq’s Ho Chi Minh Trail”, Burns attempts once again to connect the War in Iraq to the conflict in Vietnam. As usuall, the analogy only holds if one’s attention is very selective, and crucial differences are ignored.
Burns begins with a short comment about the search for Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, implying that the Americans have made his capture a top goal, and commenting that even if he is caught, this will not end the insurrection, and indeed suggests that the capture of Saddam Hussein was of little value in strategy or consequence. This is laughable, of course, since it assumes that Iraq would have acted the same over the past 18 months if Saddam had been running loose, as it has in fact. It seems to me that such things as the free elections, the impressive rise in private retail businesses in Iraq, the turnover of domestic security operations in Iraq to Iraqi officers, would not be nearly as likely to have happened, were the murderous former dictator still at large.
Burns shows his flaws early, even in the title of his column. It is a poor history student indeed, who does not understand the difference between the Ho Chi Minh trail in Southeast Asia, which was never seriously intercepted by U.S. forces, and the terrorist incursion routes, which are being fought by Coalition forces.
Mr, Burns writes as if U.S. morale is low, when in fact it is strong and rising, with the clear desperation of terrorists cpparent in their tactics and targets. Some of the accounts by the media bordered on the ludicrous. Burns reported a Washington Post account, of “rebels lying on their backs in a crawl space beneath the concrete floor of a house, blasting marines above them with bullets designed to penetrate tanks.” Leaving aside the notion that a foreigner who sneaks into Iraq for the purpose of killing Iraqi civilians as well as Coalition forces should be described as a “rebel” rather than the more accurate “terrorist”, anyone mildly familiar with Physics would question the notion that bullets have been made which “penetrate tanks”; The divorce between these MSM agents and the truth is plainly evident.
A crack was made some time ago in New York’s Media, which became a ditch and now a canyon. And people like Burns just keep digging.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
China Is Still Not Ready To Sit At The Big Table
[]
Major media likes to talk about China (Communist China, anyway) as the rising force of note in Asian affairs, whether one means trade, finance, or technology, and as a result the United States is often cautioned to stay on the good side of Beijing.
But Isabel Hilton, writing for the Guardian, explains the matter concisely and with moral conviction. Simply put, the People’s Republic of China is not answerable to their people, serves in no way as a republic as most nations define it, and has only the brutality of the worst autocratic regimes in common with any of China’s history, and none of traditional Chinese values. Unless and until that changes, the PRC is merely an unstable oligarchy with a nice veneer hiding the blood stains.
Major media likes to talk about China (Communist China, anyway) as the rising force of note in Asian affairs, whether one means trade, finance, or technology, and as a result the United States is often cautioned to stay on the good side of Beijing.
But Isabel Hilton, writing for the Guardian, explains the matter concisely and with moral conviction. Simply put, the People’s Republic of China is not answerable to their people, serves in no way as a republic as most nations define it, and has only the brutality of the worst autocratic regimes in common with any of China’s history, and none of traditional Chinese values. Unless and until that changes, the PRC is merely an unstable oligarchy with a nice veneer hiding the blood stains.
Friday, June 03, 2005
The Theory and Practice of Common Sense
...
Human Events Online has presented an interesting collection. Where most publications occasionally print a list of papers and books they recommend their readers acquire and read, HEO has produced a list of the “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries”. The lesson HEO is pressing, is that ideas have influence and power, and ignoring dangerous falsehoods allows them to become dominant.
Here is HEO’s list:
1. The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Freidrish Engels
2. Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao, by Mao Zedong
4. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, by Alfred Kinsey
5. Democracy and Education, by John Dewey
6. Das Kapital, by Karl Marx
7. The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy, by Auguste Comte
9. Beyond Good and Evil, by Freidrich Neitzsche
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by John Maynard Keynes
What strikes me as interesting when I see that list together, is how innocuous many of those titles are. Some even sound reasonable, until you find out the propositions set forth within their covers.
Evil is sometimes very subtle.
Human Events Online has presented an interesting collection. Where most publications occasionally print a list of papers and books they recommend their readers acquire and read, HEO has produced a list of the “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries”. The lesson HEO is pressing, is that ideas have influence and power, and ignoring dangerous falsehoods allows them to become dominant.
Here is HEO’s list:
1. The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Freidrish Engels
2. Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao, by Mao Zedong
4. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, by Alfred Kinsey
5. Democracy and Education, by John Dewey
6. Das Kapital, by Karl Marx
7. The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy, by Auguste Comte
9. Beyond Good and Evil, by Freidrich Neitzsche
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by John Maynard Keynes
What strikes me as interesting when I see that list together, is how innocuous many of those titles are. Some even sound reasonable, until you find out the propositions set forth within their covers.
Evil is sometimes very subtle.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
A Broken Oath
ooo
“I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and
directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I
enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever,
so help me GOD.”
- Oath spoken by every FBI agent upon commission at Quantico
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...without due process of law”
- from the 5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
“the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
- from the 6th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Assuming that Mr. Woodward’s vouchsafe is sufficient proof, the media has begun the obligatory Liberal praise for former Deputy Director of the FBI, W. Mark Felt, for leaking information against President Richard Nixon to the Washington Post through reporters Woodward and Bernstein. “Hero” is a common word used for the former lawman, as though Felt should be held in equal or higher regard than, say, Marines currently serving in Iraq. I can’t help but believe that to many in the press, this is indeed how they see the matter.
Certainly, Richard Nixon’s conduct while President is inexcusable at times, and the tapes only reinforced the unsavory nature of Nixon’s anger against Democrats and the media. It should be understood, however, that Nixon’s aides played faction games against each other (remember Kissinger and Haldeman?), and in some cases the charges Democrats levelled against Nixon may have been redirected from the original culprit, to a more desirable target. Most people examining the Watergate scandal do not consider that President Nixon never had appropriate counsel; by the time Congress went after Nixon, Dean and Michell had already deserted him and madetheir own deals.
With that in mind, consider the conduct of Mr. Felt. As a Deputy Director of the FBI, Mr. Felt was a lawman, and answerable to the same code as any FBI agent. That is, if he found evidence of a crime, he was morally and legally required to bring it to his superiors’ attention.
Did Mr. Felt contact the FBI Director? No, he did not.
Did Mr. Felt notify the Attorney General? Again, no he did not.
Did Mr. Felt submit his evidence to a Grand Jury, or to his Congressman? Once again, Felt made no attempt to provide this information to any law enforcement or justice authority whatsoever.
Instead, FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt conducted a personal vendetta against the President of the United States, passing along what he felt like telling, to Mr. Woodward, knowing the information would be printed as unchallenged fact, without any corroboration whatsoever, and without any sort of opportunity for the President to have an opportunity for rebuttal. This continuing action was in direct and deliberate violation of law and code.
In a Letter to the Editor of the Houston Chronicle, reader Jay Bute of El Lago hit the matter directly on the head when he asked whether, considering that a top FBI officer had complete control of what was released to the press, it might be possible that Felt could present whatever evidence he wanted in whatever manner served his personal interest and worse, could suppress or destroy evidence which might favor the President? At best, Deputy Director Felt violated his oath, obstructed justice, and violated the constitutional rights of Richard Nixon and his Administration. At worst, Felt damaged the entire balance between the Legislative and Executive branches of government, by usurping the process of investigation in order to attack a man he personally disliked.
While the Liberals cheer on Mr. Felt, keep in mind this basic fact: They are cheering a dirty cop.
“I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and
directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I
enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever,
so help me GOD.”
- Oath spoken by every FBI agent upon commission at Quantico
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...without due process of law”
- from the 5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
“the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
- from the 6th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Assuming that Mr. Woodward’s vouchsafe is sufficient proof, the media has begun the obligatory Liberal praise for former Deputy Director of the FBI, W. Mark Felt, for leaking information against President Richard Nixon to the Washington Post through reporters Woodward and Bernstein. “Hero” is a common word used for the former lawman, as though Felt should be held in equal or higher regard than, say, Marines currently serving in Iraq. I can’t help but believe that to many in the press, this is indeed how they see the matter.
Certainly, Richard Nixon’s conduct while President is inexcusable at times, and the tapes only reinforced the unsavory nature of Nixon’s anger against Democrats and the media. It should be understood, however, that Nixon’s aides played faction games against each other (remember Kissinger and Haldeman?), and in some cases the charges Democrats levelled against Nixon may have been redirected from the original culprit, to a more desirable target. Most people examining the Watergate scandal do not consider that President Nixon never had appropriate counsel; by the time Congress went after Nixon, Dean and Michell had already deserted him and madetheir own deals.
With that in mind, consider the conduct of Mr. Felt. As a Deputy Director of the FBI, Mr. Felt was a lawman, and answerable to the same code as any FBI agent. That is, if he found evidence of a crime, he was morally and legally required to bring it to his superiors’ attention.
Did Mr. Felt contact the FBI Director? No, he did not.
Did Mr. Felt notify the Attorney General? Again, no he did not.
Did Mr. Felt submit his evidence to a Grand Jury, or to his Congressman? Once again, Felt made no attempt to provide this information to any law enforcement or justice authority whatsoever.
Instead, FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt conducted a personal vendetta against the President of the United States, passing along what he felt like telling, to Mr. Woodward, knowing the information would be printed as unchallenged fact, without any corroboration whatsoever, and without any sort of opportunity for the President to have an opportunity for rebuttal. This continuing action was in direct and deliberate violation of law and code.
In a Letter to the Editor of the Houston Chronicle, reader Jay Bute of El Lago hit the matter directly on the head when he asked whether, considering that a top FBI officer had complete control of what was released to the press, it might be possible that Felt could present whatever evidence he wanted in whatever manner served his personal interest and worse, could suppress or destroy evidence which might favor the President? At best, Deputy Director Felt violated his oath, obstructed justice, and violated the constitutional rights of Richard Nixon and his Administration. At worst, Felt damaged the entire balance between the Legislative and Executive branches of government, by usurping the process of investigation in order to attack a man he personally disliked.
While the Liberals cheer on Mr. Felt, keep in mind this basic fact: They are cheering a dirty cop.
Why It Matters That Bush Is President
Women voting in Afghanistan. Just one more thing that happens when 50 million people are freed from tyranny, because George W. Bush sticks to his principles.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
A Common Frustration
.
The Federal election of 2000 casts long shadows, it seems. Actually, that’s not true, but the election was one representative event, where partisan tensions rose and left scars on the nation. Republicans were bouyed by George W. Bush’s Presidential win in 2000, along with control of both the House and Senate in the Congress, and so came to think of the conflict as a hard-won victory, and they looked forward to enacting legislation as the clear majority party in power. For their part, the Democrats bitterly resented their losses in the national contests, all the more when they saw a trend in the draining away of their power. When the United States Supreme Court ruled against the Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to subvert the election and their State Constitution, Democrats saw the defeat as a sign that they had fallen on all fronts.
Since the 2000 election, things have gotten only worse for the Democrats, as they are now losing not only national offices, but governorships and voter support in party affiliation. With the disgrace of Dan Rather and Jordan Eason, Democrats are also seeing the fall of their cherished icons in the public media.
During the first session of 2001, Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to put together the promised agenda of legislation, but found themselves stymied on three fronts: First, President Bush acted with something less than bold confidence because of the close numbers of his election. Second, the Senate reversed opportunity not only because of the mercenary defection of Jim Jeffords, but also due to the historical egotism and narcissism of the Senators as a group. But third, the House also found it unexpectedly difficult to reach consensus on some of the most important bills. The Republicans were finding that majority as a party did not translate to unity on their priorities and promises.
So began the first term of President George W. Bush. Since then, the Republicans have enjoyed surprising victories in the 2002 Congressional elections, and in the 2004 Federal elections, but still face the inertia that faced them four years ago. True, there was the tax break vote, and the stunningly bold action which has freed two nations from despots, and which still holds the potential to remake the future of the entire Middle East. There is also the resolute decision to put up with stalls in Congress, rather than play the games Democrats used against the first George Bush, which would provide short-term amity but weaken the nation and the party. But the Republicans are finding that every battle has a sequel, and promises made to get elected are not always remembered by the men who make them, no matter how noble the words. Just as a Democrat majority in Congress did not give Bill Clinton everything he wanted, a Republican Congress will sometimes put itself ahead of the President and the Nation.
While the Democrats fight the growing trend of Conservative values, the Republicans fight a stubborn system of entrenched personal egos and the status quo. A common frustration, even for two parties moving in different directions.
The Federal election of 2000 casts long shadows, it seems. Actually, that’s not true, but the election was one representative event, where partisan tensions rose and left scars on the nation. Republicans were bouyed by George W. Bush’s Presidential win in 2000, along with control of both the House and Senate in the Congress, and so came to think of the conflict as a hard-won victory, and they looked forward to enacting legislation as the clear majority party in power. For their part, the Democrats bitterly resented their losses in the national contests, all the more when they saw a trend in the draining away of their power. When the United States Supreme Court ruled against the Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to subvert the election and their State Constitution, Democrats saw the defeat as a sign that they had fallen on all fronts.
Since the 2000 election, things have gotten only worse for the Democrats, as they are now losing not only national offices, but governorships and voter support in party affiliation. With the disgrace of Dan Rather and Jordan Eason, Democrats are also seeing the fall of their cherished icons in the public media.
During the first session of 2001, Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to put together the promised agenda of legislation, but found themselves stymied on three fronts: First, President Bush acted with something less than bold confidence because of the close numbers of his election. Second, the Senate reversed opportunity not only because of the mercenary defection of Jim Jeffords, but also due to the historical egotism and narcissism of the Senators as a group. But third, the House also found it unexpectedly difficult to reach consensus on some of the most important bills. The Republicans were finding that majority as a party did not translate to unity on their priorities and promises.
So began the first term of President George W. Bush. Since then, the Republicans have enjoyed surprising victories in the 2002 Congressional elections, and in the 2004 Federal elections, but still face the inertia that faced them four years ago. True, there was the tax break vote, and the stunningly bold action which has freed two nations from despots, and which still holds the potential to remake the future of the entire Middle East. There is also the resolute decision to put up with stalls in Congress, rather than play the games Democrats used against the first George Bush, which would provide short-term amity but weaken the nation and the party. But the Republicans are finding that every battle has a sequel, and promises made to get elected are not always remembered by the men who make them, no matter how noble the words. Just as a Democrat majority in Congress did not give Bill Clinton everything he wanted, a Republican Congress will sometimes put itself ahead of the President and the Nation.
While the Democrats fight the growing trend of Conservative values, the Republicans fight a stubborn system of entrenched personal egos and the status quo. A common frustration, even for two parties moving in different directions.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Political Suicide
-*-*-*-
One thing I have always found difficult to understand, is why it is that a fact obvious to most people always seems to miss a few, and almost always the people who need that comprehension the most. Denial is a common human failing, but even so it is baffling to see people deliberately ignore the source of their difficulties, and the key to their correction. In American politics, the Liberal mindset is doing their level best to impersonate lemmings as their party implodes from the force of Logic pummeling against their platform. And yet, even now the Liberal mind seeks ways not to correct their errors, but to justify them. This is bad news, because America has always been best run under the balanced influence of both Conservatism and Liberalism, and always with Reason at the helm. If one of those ends is lost from the government, the resulting imbalance is going to prove unpredictable, and eventually result in regrettable events.
Paul Starr wrote an interesting piece in the “The American Prospect”, which he calls “The Liberal Project Now”. I read the piece hoping to see an honest discussion of what has gone wrong with American Liberalism. While that was not what happened the article is an interesting look into the Liberal mindset.
Predictably, Starr begins with the vague and invalid accusation that the Republican Majority represents “a shift in partisan control of the federal government”. Taken literally, those words are true, but they were even more true when FDR and LBJ enjoyed overwhelming majorities, with effectively no balance from the Right, leading to serious errors which are only now being properly addressed.
Starr starts down the emotional and invalid path, when he claims that Conservatives are “devoted to dismantling the constitutional and fiscal underpinning of liberal government”, which in truth amounts to petty whining that a Republican majority means to govern with the mandate they received, just as happens anywhere when a political party is given the authority to do its job as it sees fit. I found this quote by Starr especially telling: “When historians and social scientists in the ‘50s said American politics reflected an ideological consensus that was liberal at its foundations, it was the absence of any socialist challenge that they mainly had in mind.” What that statement actually told me, is that academics concluded that FDR’s control of the federal government was so complete, that even the election of Eisenhower as President and a Republican Congress could not immediately turn the nation from its Leftist agenda and course; the Liberals victory had been so complete for a generation, that alternatives were not seriously considered.
Starr is not completely blind to the fall from power by Liberals, but he misses the root causes. Even as he admits that Liberals have only recently “faced the possibility of being totally excluded, not just from power but from any influence or access.” Now really, I am as big a fan of Dubya as anyone, but even I stop short of saying he has telepathic mind control, which is essentially what would be necessary for the Conservatives to have so wedged the door against Liberals. The truth is better news for Liberals, and much worse. The good news for Liberals, is that Conservatives do not have nearly the total power that Starr pretends here; the bad news is that Americans have rejected the worst of the Liberal agenda, and the stubborn refusal of Liberal Leadership to see that most Americans will not tolerate extreme Liberalism any more. A Pew poll in 2004 revealed that fewer Americans than ever before consider themselves ‘Liberal’ (as a percentage of the voting population), while Conservatives are on a long rise in not only support, but voter identification. It’s no accident that Florida and Texas, once both considered Liberal states, are increasingly Conservative, and it’s no fluke that the Governor of California is a Republican.
Starr says the job of the Liberal Leadership is “to make liberal government bolder, and to get its leaders to take political risks”. Sorry Mr. Starr, but that was what the Liberals tried in 2002 and 2004, and it just does not work. A truly bold liberal would be willing to take a long hard look at why your policies are rejected, not only by the President and government in office, but by a majority of Americans. “Liberals certainly need to defend liberal accomplishments and oppose conservative measures” demands Starr, but that simply is not wise. There are no liberal accomplishments of note, only a petulant denial of real needs and crises, and a refusal to face the fact that the only plans of action are coming from Conservatives. As for opposing Conservatives, why oppose a plan simply because a Conservative presents it? Unless and until Liberals accept reasonable measures offered by Conservatives, and unless and until Liberals can offer realistic and functional alternatives from their own platform, they will be hurting their own future to play the spite card as they have been doing these past five years.
Starr trips over a useful element is rebuilding Liberalism as a political option, when he writes “Rebuilding a Democratic majority will require a broad and inclusive politics and the acceptance of ideological diversity within the party”. Starr neglects to consider the recent history, though; The GOP accepts Pro-Choice Republicans as legitimate and equal to anyone in the party, while the Democrats shut down any Pro-Life members in their party. The GOP accepts party members who worried about the War in Iraq, while the Democrats refused to stand behind the President just a few weeks after 9/11. The Conservatives walk the walk, and the Liberals whine. Starr proves he doesn’t understand the nation’s barometer when he claims there is reason to believe that Americans would value a party “committed to the constitutional principles in force since the late 1930s”, which is Liberal code for the court-packing tactics of FDR, and the subsequent court activism which created two new branches of heavy taxation in violation of any Constitutional mandate, to say nothing of a progressive tax system so cumbersome and punitive, that a majority of Americans has supported the disbanding of the IRS for more than forty years. Starr yearns for a Socialist America, never realizing that ideology died with Stalin.
One thing I have always found difficult to understand, is why it is that a fact obvious to most people always seems to miss a few, and almost always the people who need that comprehension the most. Denial is a common human failing, but even so it is baffling to see people deliberately ignore the source of their difficulties, and the key to their correction. In American politics, the Liberal mindset is doing their level best to impersonate lemmings as their party implodes from the force of Logic pummeling against their platform. And yet, even now the Liberal mind seeks ways not to correct their errors, but to justify them. This is bad news, because America has always been best run under the balanced influence of both Conservatism and Liberalism, and always with Reason at the helm. If one of those ends is lost from the government, the resulting imbalance is going to prove unpredictable, and eventually result in regrettable events.
Paul Starr wrote an interesting piece in the “The American Prospect”, which he calls “The Liberal Project Now”. I read the piece hoping to see an honest discussion of what has gone wrong with American Liberalism. While that was not what happened the article is an interesting look into the Liberal mindset.
Predictably, Starr begins with the vague and invalid accusation that the Republican Majority represents “a shift in partisan control of the federal government”. Taken literally, those words are true, but they were even more true when FDR and LBJ enjoyed overwhelming majorities, with effectively no balance from the Right, leading to serious errors which are only now being properly addressed.
Starr starts down the emotional and invalid path, when he claims that Conservatives are “devoted to dismantling the constitutional and fiscal underpinning of liberal government”, which in truth amounts to petty whining that a Republican majority means to govern with the mandate they received, just as happens anywhere when a political party is given the authority to do its job as it sees fit. I found this quote by Starr especially telling: “When historians and social scientists in the ‘50s said American politics reflected an ideological consensus that was liberal at its foundations, it was the absence of any socialist challenge that they mainly had in mind.” What that statement actually told me, is that academics concluded that FDR’s control of the federal government was so complete, that even the election of Eisenhower as President and a Republican Congress could not immediately turn the nation from its Leftist agenda and course; the Liberals victory had been so complete for a generation, that alternatives were not seriously considered.
Starr is not completely blind to the fall from power by Liberals, but he misses the root causes. Even as he admits that Liberals have only recently “faced the possibility of being totally excluded, not just from power but from any influence or access.” Now really, I am as big a fan of Dubya as anyone, but even I stop short of saying he has telepathic mind control, which is essentially what would be necessary for the Conservatives to have so wedged the door against Liberals. The truth is better news for Liberals, and much worse. The good news for Liberals, is that Conservatives do not have nearly the total power that Starr pretends here; the bad news is that Americans have rejected the worst of the Liberal agenda, and the stubborn refusal of Liberal Leadership to see that most Americans will not tolerate extreme Liberalism any more. A Pew poll in 2004 revealed that fewer Americans than ever before consider themselves ‘Liberal’ (as a percentage of the voting population), while Conservatives are on a long rise in not only support, but voter identification. It’s no accident that Florida and Texas, once both considered Liberal states, are increasingly Conservative, and it’s no fluke that the Governor of California is a Republican.
Starr says the job of the Liberal Leadership is “to make liberal government bolder, and to get its leaders to take political risks”. Sorry Mr. Starr, but that was what the Liberals tried in 2002 and 2004, and it just does not work. A truly bold liberal would be willing to take a long hard look at why your policies are rejected, not only by the President and government in office, but by a majority of Americans. “Liberals certainly need to defend liberal accomplishments and oppose conservative measures” demands Starr, but that simply is not wise. There are no liberal accomplishments of note, only a petulant denial of real needs and crises, and a refusal to face the fact that the only plans of action are coming from Conservatives. As for opposing Conservatives, why oppose a plan simply because a Conservative presents it? Unless and until Liberals accept reasonable measures offered by Conservatives, and unless and until Liberals can offer realistic and functional alternatives from their own platform, they will be hurting their own future to play the spite card as they have been doing these past five years.
Starr trips over a useful element is rebuilding Liberalism as a political option, when he writes “Rebuilding a Democratic majority will require a broad and inclusive politics and the acceptance of ideological diversity within the party”. Starr neglects to consider the recent history, though; The GOP accepts Pro-Choice Republicans as legitimate and equal to anyone in the party, while the Democrats shut down any Pro-Life members in their party. The GOP accepts party members who worried about the War in Iraq, while the Democrats refused to stand behind the President just a few weeks after 9/11. The Conservatives walk the walk, and the Liberals whine. Starr proves he doesn’t understand the nation’s barometer when he claims there is reason to believe that Americans would value a party “committed to the constitutional principles in force since the late 1930s”, which is Liberal code for the court-packing tactics of FDR, and the subsequent court activism which created two new branches of heavy taxation in violation of any Constitutional mandate, to say nothing of a progressive tax system so cumbersome and punitive, that a majority of Americans has supported the disbanding of the IRS for more than forty years. Starr yearns for a Socialist America, never realizing that ideology died with Stalin.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Responding To The Force
/\/\/All through the movies, we heard it; ‘May the Force be with you’. But who thought through what it means, for the Force to be with a person? One important aspect to the Force which is missed by many, is that the Force moves and acts, almost with its own volition, and while a person may believe they are acting independently of the Force (a la Han Solo), this is not really the case. The Force, however one wants to define it, is so intrinsic to human life, that it is impossible to say that the Force is not part of our very identity. And anything which is part of our identity, is a factor in our decisions and actions.
Anyone who has tried to walk down a street when the wind was blowing hard into their face, understands that direction is sometimes critical. And most of us have looked back with regret to a decision, where we ignored a signal from our gut and later realized we should have heeded it. Sensitivity to the Force and learning its communication is a skill developed through practice and careful meditation. The first step is realizing the Force has a direction and can serve a greater purpose.
Anyone who has tried to walk down a street when the wind was blowing hard into their face, understands that direction is sometimes critical. And most of us have looked back with regret to a decision, where we ignored a signal from our gut and later realized we should have heeded it. Sensitivity to the Force and learning its communication is a skill developed through practice and careful meditation. The first step is realizing the Force has a direction and can serve a greater purpose.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Blog Power, Indeed
...
If you think the New York Times really does print ‘all the news that’s fit to print’, you might want to skip this article. If you believe Dan Rather’s support of forged documents in an attempt to influence the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election was good journalism, this might make you very unhappy. And if you think that Eason Jordan was just trying to be what all journalists should aspire to become, just move on to a blog in your own part of the universe. What I mean is, the Blogosphere has now officially moved beyond the shores of the United States and Internet-only discussion, to the point where it now must be counted as a measure of political influence and policy direction by nations around the globe.
Late last week, I was contacted by an editor of the Kyodo News consortium, which is one of the largest news reporting syndicates in Asia, and is distributed to almost every newspaper, radio, and television station in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Pacific Rim. I was later interviewed by Mr. Toshimitsu Sawai, who is preparing a story about the early contenders for the U.S. Presidential Election in 2008. Mr. Sawai and I had a pleasant discussion about the qualifications of Dr. Condoleeza Rice for the office, along with speculation about her likely rivals in the Republican and Democrat parties if she chooses to run. We also discussed the significance of the Bush Doctrine in Asian affairs, how it affects trade agreements, national security, and regional alliances. Mr. Sawai is also interviewing a number of other political authorities, and I look forward to reading his story.
The significance of this interview, lies in the fact that Kyodo News did not restrict itself to the Mainstream Media in developing the story and finding sources for comment. Bloggers are now considered valid political authorities.
I wonder how long, before a major blogger wins a national office? It seems much more likely, indeed much closer, now.
If you think the New York Times really does print ‘all the news that’s fit to print’, you might want to skip this article. If you believe Dan Rather’s support of forged documents in an attempt to influence the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election was good journalism, this might make you very unhappy. And if you think that Eason Jordan was just trying to be what all journalists should aspire to become, just move on to a blog in your own part of the universe. What I mean is, the Blogosphere has now officially moved beyond the shores of the United States and Internet-only discussion, to the point where it now must be counted as a measure of political influence and policy direction by nations around the globe.
Late last week, I was contacted by an editor of the Kyodo News consortium, which is one of the largest news reporting syndicates in Asia, and is distributed to almost every newspaper, radio, and television station in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Pacific Rim. I was later interviewed by Mr. Toshimitsu Sawai, who is preparing a story about the early contenders for the U.S. Presidential Election in 2008. Mr. Sawai and I had a pleasant discussion about the qualifications of Dr. Condoleeza Rice for the office, along with speculation about her likely rivals in the Republican and Democrat parties if she chooses to run. We also discussed the significance of the Bush Doctrine in Asian affairs, how it affects trade agreements, national security, and regional alliances. Mr. Sawai is also interviewing a number of other political authorities, and I look forward to reading his story.
The significance of this interview, lies in the fact that Kyodo News did not restrict itself to the Mainstream Media in developing the story and finding sources for comment. Bloggers are now considered valid political authorities.
I wonder how long, before a major blogger wins a national office? It seems much more likely, indeed much closer, now.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
The Pursuit of Truth
[][][]
In studies of the phenomenon popularly referred to as “The Force”, serious adepts consider the attendant aspects of the practice, including the Ledi claims to be the guardians of truth, peace, and justice. It naturally follows, that Jedi studies consider the nature not only those ideals, but also our understanding of them. At the Jedi Academy, a series of lectures has been presented to students, including the search for truth. Richard Irvine, from the group called “Jedi Unity”, wrote from the perspective arguing that “we are all liars”, essentially putting up a front, a facade, to hide who and what we truly are. There is something to that, but his article presented only what I would call the negative aspects of truth, without considering the positive aspects of truth and the nobility of searching for it. I would like to address the good in searching for truth.
Some of my friends and readers may wonder why I am taking Jedi studies seriously. Perhaps I am a closet fanatic of the films? Perhaps the Texas sun has unhinged me slightly (in which case, some aspect of the Arizona sun may explain John McClain’s gradual change from noble veteran to egotistical demagogue)? Actually, I find that the Jedi studies, the ones which concern themselves with the basic ideals common to all humanity, which happened to be used to tell the Jedi story, are based on sound principles and genuine scholarship. More, Jedi students come from all walks and ages of life, including many people who have no intention of changing their faith or creed, but who are curious about why the Jedi code resonates for them. I invite you to consider the Jedi articles I write as philosophical inquiries, because that’s exactly their purpose.
Back to the pursuit of truth. When Jesus stood before Pilate, the Roman procurator for Judea, Pilate is said to have asked, “What is Truth?” While in Pilate’s case, he was probably not seeking a serious answer, the fact remains that people have been asking that question and others related to it for as long as humans have been able to speak. Socrates and Plato addressed it, as did Lao-Tse, Confucius, and Sun Tzu, and after them many other thinkers right up to the present day. The three largest religions practiced on the planet are based on the claim that they have received or discerned some or all of universal truth. Clearly, the pursuit of truth is a popular and significant activity for people, a compelling question which drives men to seek some sort of answer.
In his article accusing humans of a chronic condition of deceit, Richard Irvine noted that language is symbolism used for communication; to some degree we all miss the truth, in that our best efforts to describe a thought or concept, we must use the estimate created by language. That is not to say, however, that language cannot convey a concept accurately. If I draw a circle freehand, it will not be difficult for someone with a simple compass to show where I miss the curve, but that does not mean that someone looking at my drawing won’t recognize that I have tried to draw a circle. The intent can be conveyed, and if the intent is true, the truth can be so conveyed.
This brings up the craft of discernment. Men lie, and do so not only well and frequently, but also there are men who love and serve truth, come what may. The Jedi code is not only discovering the truth, but nurturing it and defending it, and convincing as many people as possible, that the truth is worthy of their support, not only as a practice to demand of leaders and speakers, but to develop and practice in their own lives.
This is a good thing, and worthy of honor.
In studies of the phenomenon popularly referred to as “The Force”, serious adepts consider the attendant aspects of the practice, including the Ledi claims to be the guardians of truth, peace, and justice. It naturally follows, that Jedi studies consider the nature not only those ideals, but also our understanding of them. At the Jedi Academy, a series of lectures has been presented to students, including the search for truth. Richard Irvine, from the group called “Jedi Unity”, wrote from the perspective arguing that “we are all liars”, essentially putting up a front, a facade, to hide who and what we truly are. There is something to that, but his article presented only what I would call the negative aspects of truth, without considering the positive aspects of truth and the nobility of searching for it. I would like to address the good in searching for truth.
Some of my friends and readers may wonder why I am taking Jedi studies seriously. Perhaps I am a closet fanatic of the films? Perhaps the Texas sun has unhinged me slightly (in which case, some aspect of the Arizona sun may explain John McClain’s gradual change from noble veteran to egotistical demagogue)? Actually, I find that the Jedi studies, the ones which concern themselves with the basic ideals common to all humanity, which happened to be used to tell the Jedi story, are based on sound principles and genuine scholarship. More, Jedi students come from all walks and ages of life, including many people who have no intention of changing their faith or creed, but who are curious about why the Jedi code resonates for them. I invite you to consider the Jedi articles I write as philosophical inquiries, because that’s exactly their purpose.
Back to the pursuit of truth. When Jesus stood before Pilate, the Roman procurator for Judea, Pilate is said to have asked, “What is Truth?” While in Pilate’s case, he was probably not seeking a serious answer, the fact remains that people have been asking that question and others related to it for as long as humans have been able to speak. Socrates and Plato addressed it, as did Lao-Tse, Confucius, and Sun Tzu, and after them many other thinkers right up to the present day. The three largest religions practiced on the planet are based on the claim that they have received or discerned some or all of universal truth. Clearly, the pursuit of truth is a popular and significant activity for people, a compelling question which drives men to seek some sort of answer.
In his article accusing humans of a chronic condition of deceit, Richard Irvine noted that language is symbolism used for communication; to some degree we all miss the truth, in that our best efforts to describe a thought or concept, we must use the estimate created by language. That is not to say, however, that language cannot convey a concept accurately. If I draw a circle freehand, it will not be difficult for someone with a simple compass to show where I miss the curve, but that does not mean that someone looking at my drawing won’t recognize that I have tried to draw a circle. The intent can be conveyed, and if the intent is true, the truth can be so conveyed.
This brings up the craft of discernment. Men lie, and do so not only well and frequently, but also there are men who love and serve truth, come what may. The Jedi code is not only discovering the truth, but nurturing it and defending it, and convincing as many people as possible, that the truth is worthy of their support, not only as a practice to demand of leaders and speakers, but to develop and practice in their own lives.
This is a good thing, and worthy of honor.
Friday, May 27, 2005
War Politics
[[[--]]]
In the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, there is often a point at which the rabbit sternly remarks, ‘Of course you know, this means war.’ It’s part of the comedy. Unfortunately, national politicians have begun to treat real conflicts with the same disparaging dismissal, as was demonstrated by this week’s pathetic collapse of Republican resolve, and subsequent Democrat crowing as minority demagogues won out over principled idealists. Within hours, one Democrat who had promised to vote for cloture for Judge Owen had already broken his pledge, and later that same week, Senate Democrats filibustered to again delay a vote on U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and were also sounding threats against upcoming qualified nominees for Federal Court. The fact that it is a political war, in no way diminishes the severity of the reality that we are at war, the liars and the cheats against the Constitution and its defenders.
Some in the Republican camp have suggested that those unhappy with the sell-out must accept the results of the quisling treachery, and actually suggest that we who demand that ideals be defended and subversion of the Constitution be struck down, are somehow damaging the Republican cause. This is not at all the case, and by definition never can be. There is a point where a line must be drawn, and no more leniency or excuses granted, no more variance allowed. We are the party elected to majority, not just once or just recently, but in the clear trend for more than a decade, and it is required of us to accept that command, with responsibility and authority for the decision of course and law. Anything else is surrender to forces which run on the motive of greed and corruption.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is symbolic of all that’s wrong with the GOP right now. Even after the betrayal of the judges, Senator Dole could only write “Although I am pleased that some of the President's qualified judicial nominees are finally getting the fair up or down vote they deserve, I am disappointed that not all nominees will be afforded that same courtesy”. Senator, disappointment is not the word. We are outraged, here in the base, by Senators who promised they heard us, then turned out and did exactly what they said would never happen. Your mild-mannered acceptance of the subversion of majority rule by a handful of demagogues, and the clear rejection of the public voice, makes it clear you are neither worthy of our support, nor a logical place for our money and time.
We will vote for qualified candidates, as always.
We will campaign for, and donate money to, qualified candidates, as always.
But we will not support poseurs.
You have one small window to get us back. The only way, is to immediately invoke the majority-rule option in the Senate for ALL Presidential appointments during the 109th Congress. That’s what was promised, that’s what is expected, and nothing less will count.
It’s wheat and chaff time, Ms. Dole. Are you a Republican, or are you a pretender?
In the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, there is often a point at which the rabbit sternly remarks, ‘Of course you know, this means war.’ It’s part of the comedy. Unfortunately, national politicians have begun to treat real conflicts with the same disparaging dismissal, as was demonstrated by this week’s pathetic collapse of Republican resolve, and subsequent Democrat crowing as minority demagogues won out over principled idealists. Within hours, one Democrat who had promised to vote for cloture for Judge Owen had already broken his pledge, and later that same week, Senate Democrats filibustered to again delay a vote on U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and were also sounding threats against upcoming qualified nominees for Federal Court. The fact that it is a political war, in no way diminishes the severity of the reality that we are at war, the liars and the cheats against the Constitution and its defenders.
Some in the Republican camp have suggested that those unhappy with the sell-out must accept the results of the quisling treachery, and actually suggest that we who demand that ideals be defended and subversion of the Constitution be struck down, are somehow damaging the Republican cause. This is not at all the case, and by definition never can be. There is a point where a line must be drawn, and no more leniency or excuses granted, no more variance allowed. We are the party elected to majority, not just once or just recently, but in the clear trend for more than a decade, and it is required of us to accept that command, with responsibility and authority for the decision of course and law. Anything else is surrender to forces which run on the motive of greed and corruption.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is symbolic of all that’s wrong with the GOP right now. Even after the betrayal of the judges, Senator Dole could only write “Although I am pleased that some of the President's qualified judicial nominees are finally getting the fair up or down vote they deserve, I am disappointed that not all nominees will be afforded that same courtesy”. Senator, disappointment is not the word. We are outraged, here in the base, by Senators who promised they heard us, then turned out and did exactly what they said would never happen. Your mild-mannered acceptance of the subversion of majority rule by a handful of demagogues, and the clear rejection of the public voice, makes it clear you are neither worthy of our support, nor a logical place for our money and time.
We will vote for qualified candidates, as always.
We will campaign for, and donate money to, qualified candidates, as always.
But we will not support poseurs.
You have one small window to get us back. The only way, is to immediately invoke the majority-rule option in the Senate for ALL Presidential appointments during the 109th Congress. That’s what was promised, that’s what is expected, and nothing less will count.
It’s wheat and chaff time, Ms. Dole. Are you a Republican, or are you a pretender?
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Jedi Types
OOO
I’ve taken up a renewed interest in things Jedi in the past month, for obvious reasons. But I always found the notion of a group or people dedicated to the advancement of justice and truth, to be a worthy goal. After all, I always wondered why, since the Boy and Girl Scouts were such great organizations, why there wasn’t an adult component. I don’t mean campouts and funny uniforms, but a dedication to the more noble pursuits. And that leads me to the Jedi. No, not movie marathons, dreaming of magic powers or funny uniforms, but again a serious study and pursuit of ideals worth the effort.
One nice thing about the 21st Century (AD), is Search Engines. I just Googled “Jedi” and found myself in a treasure trove of information, some of it useless and vapid, but some of it well worth the visit. I have focused on TheJedi.org for now, in part because it has a lot of information made easily accessible, in part because it’s free to all seekers, and in part because it’s a very serious study of what they call “Jedi Realism”. That is, they strip away the silliness and the special effects, to get to the heart of what the Jedi are as a philosophy and discipline. And these guys have worked out a functional system worth examination. No, that doesn’t mean I’m going to claim my faith is now Jedi, or that I plan to open up a shop of movie memorabilia. What I am going to do, though, is look for new perspectives from the “Jedi” point of view, and post on it if I find something worth noting. Such a thought came to me today.
Most people don’t think about Jedi, and the ones who do generally form a single opinion of them and hold that in their mind with the mental label ‘Jedi’. But even the Star Wars films showed a number of schools of Jedi thought and action and belief. I’m leaving out what I consider Jedi “bit” parts, because cameo appearances can’t really provide insight in the beliefs and doctrines of a person. That leaves us, however, with valid examples in Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Anikin Skywalker/Darth Vader, the Emperor and Count Dooku, Darth Maul, and of course Luke Skywalker (Film titles are abbreviated to acronyms in this article).
I start with Obi-Wan Kenobi, because he shows up the most. Pretty neat trick, to get killed in the first movie, yet show up in all six anyway. Obi-Wan, if you recall the films, was hanging out in the desert on Tattooine, but as soon as Luke showed up and the hologram played, OWK was at full speed immediately. He was conversant with desert customs, yet equally at home on a starship, very much the Renaissance Man in Space. OWK worked alone comfortably, yet was not antisocial or disgruntled. The audience is left with the impression that Obi-Wan was a pretty regular guy for a Jedi, although he had Yoda’s favor (Dooku said so when they clashed in AOTC), yet I find it reasonable to consider Obi-Wan one of the greatest; his disappearing trick when Vader strikes him in ANH is a feat no other Jedi manages, even Yoda. Further, OWK displays a constant balance of mood that is the perfect example of Jedi serenity and peace, and his humble demeanor serves him well throughout. Also, OWK is knowledgeable and full of life, containing the four Jedi aspirations in his work, words, and apparent thoughts.
Next up is Yoda. If you want to realize the impact of Yoda, realize that millions of adults sat and listened to a green muppet, taking him seriously. Not just once, but regularly and as a sage character of wisdom and insight. That’s powerful stuff. The reason it’s so powerful, is because Yoda spoke from basic truths. Like OWK, Yoda is very much alive and in tune with Nature, he is serene, he is knowledgeable and wise, and he is humble, willing to act silly in order to discover Luke’s intentions in TESB. The deference given to Yoda by other Jedi in TPM, AOTC, and ROTS is not always compelling, although I found it a good touch that Yoda never once demanded deference, or appeared to have any sort of arrogance of selfish pride. Between OWN and Yoda, a template of the ideal Master/Apprentice relationship was presented. Both functional and worthy of their own respect, but at the same time unique individuals and yet communicating and working together to a common purpose.
Next up is Anikin Skywalker, who became Darth Vader. While Vader’s character was good drama for the movie series, it was significant to me to see what Anikin lost when he became Darth. When you take away the cool black outfit with personal intimidation package, and he’s not terrifying/killing flunkies, Darth really accomplishes very little. In ANH, his battle station gets destroyed. In TESB, he accidentally cuts off his son’s hand while unsuccessfully trying to recruit him. He also loses custody of the rebels he was pursuing, as well as his (unknown to him) own daughter. In ROTJ, he gets another battle station destroyed, kills the Emperor which gets him killed in the process (which is kind of a bad thing, realizing at the end of your life that you made the worst possible career choice, and the best you can do is destroy everything you worked to build). Not a hit parade, that. In the course of the films, he loses his innocence, his family, his love, his ideals, his way, and his life.
Then we have the Emperor and Count Dooku. These two are sort of a set, because what we see in both their cases, is that they start on a path to true discovery and growth, and are detoured by ambition and arrogance. In the end, their own flaws destroy them, and they end up dead and dishonored. The way that seems most powerful is nothing more than a petty excuse for quitting and throwing away potential.
A more active version of that futility can be seen in Darth Maul. Like the Emperor and Dooku, Maul gives up everything worth having in the pursuit of pure power, in his case a fanatic devotion to a perversion of the Jedi Code, one which makes him formidable, enough to take on 2 Jedi at once and overpower them, but which destroys him on his first mistake.
And that leaves us with Luke Skywalker. Luke grows from a boy with potential, to a true Jedi Knight, worthy not only to defeat the Emperor and redeem his father’s soul, but to recreate the Jedi Order. He does this by learning the Jedi Creed, very much the hard way: The only parents he knows are murdered, then his mentor and closest friends are killed or captured, and then Luke discovers that his father is the evil force behind all his trouble. Worse, Luke learns from Yoda that the path he would most like to take, to directly fight against this evil, would only lead to him becoming evil himself. So, even after hard training physically and mentally, Luke realizes he must face and master himself, before he can confront his father and accomplish his identity and ideals, even at great personal cost. Yet in the end, Luke has everything he truly desires; he has family in his sister and in the knowledge that his father, his mentor, and his teacher are one with the Force; he has friends and honor, and he knows that he is truly Jedi.
So in looking at these people, we see the dutiful balance of Obi-Wan Kenobi, the wisdom and serenity of Yoda, the impulsiveness of Anikin, the lust for power in the Emperor and Dooku, the battle rage of Maul, and the growth and earnest faith of Luke. There are worthwhile lessons in each of them, whether of not you want to consider the Jedi aspect of their characters.
I’ve taken up a renewed interest in things Jedi in the past month, for obvious reasons. But I always found the notion of a group or people dedicated to the advancement of justice and truth, to be a worthy goal. After all, I always wondered why, since the Boy and Girl Scouts were such great organizations, why there wasn’t an adult component. I don’t mean campouts and funny uniforms, but a dedication to the more noble pursuits. And that leads me to the Jedi. No, not movie marathons, dreaming of magic powers or funny uniforms, but again a serious study and pursuit of ideals worth the effort.
One nice thing about the 21st Century (AD), is Search Engines. I just Googled “Jedi” and found myself in a treasure trove of information, some of it useless and vapid, but some of it well worth the visit. I have focused on TheJedi.org for now, in part because it has a lot of information made easily accessible, in part because it’s free to all seekers, and in part because it’s a very serious study of what they call “Jedi Realism”. That is, they strip away the silliness and the special effects, to get to the heart of what the Jedi are as a philosophy and discipline. And these guys have worked out a functional system worth examination. No, that doesn’t mean I’m going to claim my faith is now Jedi, or that I plan to open up a shop of movie memorabilia. What I am going to do, though, is look for new perspectives from the “Jedi” point of view, and post on it if I find something worth noting. Such a thought came to me today.
Most people don’t think about Jedi, and the ones who do generally form a single opinion of them and hold that in their mind with the mental label ‘Jedi’. But even the Star Wars films showed a number of schools of Jedi thought and action and belief. I’m leaving out what I consider Jedi “bit” parts, because cameo appearances can’t really provide insight in the beliefs and doctrines of a person. That leaves us, however, with valid examples in Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Anikin Skywalker/Darth Vader, the Emperor and Count Dooku, Darth Maul, and of course Luke Skywalker (Film titles are abbreviated to acronyms in this article).
I start with Obi-Wan Kenobi, because he shows up the most. Pretty neat trick, to get killed in the first movie, yet show up in all six anyway. Obi-Wan, if you recall the films, was hanging out in the desert on Tattooine, but as soon as Luke showed up and the hologram played, OWK was at full speed immediately. He was conversant with desert customs, yet equally at home on a starship, very much the Renaissance Man in Space. OWK worked alone comfortably, yet was not antisocial or disgruntled. The audience is left with the impression that Obi-Wan was a pretty regular guy for a Jedi, although he had Yoda’s favor (Dooku said so when they clashed in AOTC), yet I find it reasonable to consider Obi-Wan one of the greatest; his disappearing trick when Vader strikes him in ANH is a feat no other Jedi manages, even Yoda. Further, OWK displays a constant balance of mood that is the perfect example of Jedi serenity and peace, and his humble demeanor serves him well throughout. Also, OWK is knowledgeable and full of life, containing the four Jedi aspirations in his work, words, and apparent thoughts.
Next up is Yoda. If you want to realize the impact of Yoda, realize that millions of adults sat and listened to a green muppet, taking him seriously. Not just once, but regularly and as a sage character of wisdom and insight. That’s powerful stuff. The reason it’s so powerful, is because Yoda spoke from basic truths. Like OWK, Yoda is very much alive and in tune with Nature, he is serene, he is knowledgeable and wise, and he is humble, willing to act silly in order to discover Luke’s intentions in TESB. The deference given to Yoda by other Jedi in TPM, AOTC, and ROTS is not always compelling, although I found it a good touch that Yoda never once demanded deference, or appeared to have any sort of arrogance of selfish pride. Between OWN and Yoda, a template of the ideal Master/Apprentice relationship was presented. Both functional and worthy of their own respect, but at the same time unique individuals and yet communicating and working together to a common purpose.
Next up is Anikin Skywalker, who became Darth Vader. While Vader’s character was good drama for the movie series, it was significant to me to see what Anikin lost when he became Darth. When you take away the cool black outfit with personal intimidation package, and he’s not terrifying/killing flunkies, Darth really accomplishes very little. In ANH, his battle station gets destroyed. In TESB, he accidentally cuts off his son’s hand while unsuccessfully trying to recruit him. He also loses custody of the rebels he was pursuing, as well as his (unknown to him) own daughter. In ROTJ, he gets another battle station destroyed, kills the Emperor which gets him killed in the process (which is kind of a bad thing, realizing at the end of your life that you made the worst possible career choice, and the best you can do is destroy everything you worked to build). Not a hit parade, that. In the course of the films, he loses his innocence, his family, his love, his ideals, his way, and his life.
Then we have the Emperor and Count Dooku. These two are sort of a set, because what we see in both their cases, is that they start on a path to true discovery and growth, and are detoured by ambition and arrogance. In the end, their own flaws destroy them, and they end up dead and dishonored. The way that seems most powerful is nothing more than a petty excuse for quitting and throwing away potential.
A more active version of that futility can be seen in Darth Maul. Like the Emperor and Dooku, Maul gives up everything worth having in the pursuit of pure power, in his case a fanatic devotion to a perversion of the Jedi Code, one which makes him formidable, enough to take on 2 Jedi at once and overpower them, but which destroys him on his first mistake.
And that leaves us with Luke Skywalker. Luke grows from a boy with potential, to a true Jedi Knight, worthy not only to defeat the Emperor and redeem his father’s soul, but to recreate the Jedi Order. He does this by learning the Jedi Creed, very much the hard way: The only parents he knows are murdered, then his mentor and closest friends are killed or captured, and then Luke discovers that his father is the evil force behind all his trouble. Worse, Luke learns from Yoda that the path he would most like to take, to directly fight against this evil, would only lead to him becoming evil himself. So, even after hard training physically and mentally, Luke realizes he must face and master himself, before he can confront his father and accomplish his identity and ideals, even at great personal cost. Yet in the end, Luke has everything he truly desires; he has family in his sister and in the knowledge that his father, his mentor, and his teacher are one with the Force; he has friends and honor, and he knows that he is truly Jedi.
So in looking at these people, we see the dutiful balance of Obi-Wan Kenobi, the wisdom and serenity of Yoda, the impulsiveness of Anikin, the lust for power in the Emperor and Dooku, the battle rage of Maul, and the growth and earnest faith of Luke. There are worthwhile lessons in each of them, whether of not you want to consider the Jedi aspect of their characters.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
National Missing Child Day
[]
Today is National Missing Child Day. According to statistics from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) , approximately 725,000 juveniles or children are reported missing to the police each year. That’s more than two thousand children a day. Congress mandated the automatic NCIC entry and police report in every case of a missing child, with the National Child Search Assistance Act in 1990. Since 1990, NCIC missing persons reports have increased 27%.
According to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2000;
· Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping: kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent), kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent), and kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent).
· Family kidnapping is committed primarily by parents, involves a larger percentage of female perpetrators (43 percent) than other types of kidnapping offenses, occurs more frequently to children under 6, equally victimizes juveniles of both sexes, and most often originates in the home.
· Stranger kidnapping victimizes more females than males, occurs primarily at outdoor locations, victimizes both teenagers and school-age children, is associated with sexual assaults in the case of girl victims and robberies in the case of boy victims (although not exclusively so), and is the type of kidnapping most likely to involve the use of a firearm.
You can help find children and bring them home safe. Just be sure you do these simple things:
[] When the mailers come, LOOK at the picture, and really think about whether you might have seen the child.
[] When you visit WAL-MART or any store participating in a Child Search program, take the time to look at the pictures and think.
[] When an AMBER ALERT is broadcast, note the description and information
[] Contact the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or Child Find of America, to learn more.
You can save a child's life.
Today is National Missing Child Day. According to statistics from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) , approximately 725,000 juveniles or children are reported missing to the police each year. That’s more than two thousand children a day. Congress mandated the automatic NCIC entry and police report in every case of a missing child, with the National Child Search Assistance Act in 1990. Since 1990, NCIC missing persons reports have increased 27%.
According to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2000;
· Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping: kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent), kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent), and kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent).
· Family kidnapping is committed primarily by parents, involves a larger percentage of female perpetrators (43 percent) than other types of kidnapping offenses, occurs more frequently to children under 6, equally victimizes juveniles of both sexes, and most often originates in the home.
· Stranger kidnapping victimizes more females than males, occurs primarily at outdoor locations, victimizes both teenagers and school-age children, is associated with sexual assaults in the case of girl victims and robberies in the case of boy victims (although not exclusively so), and is the type of kidnapping most likely to involve the use of a firearm.
You can help find children and bring them home safe. Just be sure you do these simple things:
[] When the mailers come, LOOK at the picture, and really think about whether you might have seen the child.
[] When you visit WAL-MART or any store participating in a Child Search program, take the time to look at the pictures and think.
[] When an AMBER ALERT is broadcast, note the description and information
[] Contact the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or Child Find of America, to learn more.
You can save a child's life.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Why Senators Should Not Be Allowed To Watch TV
O
In the season finale of "24", super-agent Jack Bauer chased down terrorists, made a deal which let criminals get away, a nuclear weapon is shot down, and the government in power proves to be either weak or corrupt.
Around the same time as this episode was aired, 14 Senators took it upon themselves to claim the authority belonging to the whole Senate, made a deal which excused Democratic calumny while denying the majority of the Senators their right and authority, the much-needed 'nuclear' option was shot down, and the group of fourteen usurping Senators proved themselves no better than political whores, ambitious and unscrupulous.
Senators should not be allowed to watch television.
In the season finale of "24", super-agent Jack Bauer chased down terrorists, made a deal which let criminals get away, a nuclear weapon is shot down, and the government in power proves to be either weak or corrupt.
Around the same time as this episode was aired, 14 Senators took it upon themselves to claim the authority belonging to the whole Senate, made a deal which excused Democratic calumny while denying the majority of the Senators their right and authority, the much-needed 'nuclear' option was shot down, and the group of fourteen usurping Senators proved themselves no better than political whores, ambitious and unscrupulous.
Senators should not be allowed to watch television.
TREACHERY!!
<---
There has been much noise about the deal made to avert the Senate vote on whether to actually do the jobs they have been elected to. Anyone who claims this is a “good” deal, either is a Democrat, or has not read the text of the deal. Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the text from the deal made by the 14 Senators, and my comments regarding their implications:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
“We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based on mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future nominations in the 109th Congress.”
First, given the unconstitutional tricks played by Reid and the Democrats for the past five years, to put Reid on the same level as Frist is not only a slap in the face of Dr. Frist, who has performed his work honorably and responsibly, but also denies consequence and accountability for the Democrats’ past offenses. This first paragraph gives the Democrats a pass for their conduct. Note also, that 14 Senators have taken it upon themselves, to declare the rules for the other 86. If usurpation by the minority were not something to fear before, this is an unconscionable advance in political trickery, and should be shouted down for the elitist mindset it advances.
“This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.”
In plain English, this translates to ‘We don’t give a rat’s hindside for what the U.S. Constitution demands we do as Senators. We few have taken upon ourselves to declare the rules and order for all judicial nominations for the foreseeable future.’
“We have agreed to the following:
“Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
“A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owens (5th Circuit).
“B. Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).”
This is outrageous! These 14 bombasts have finally decided that after years of waiting, they are willing to allow floor votes on some judges, all of whose credentials were established long ago. Yet, other judges are specifically and deliberately held to a different standard, on no basis related to their competency, or the need to fill bench vacancies. This, without question, is unconstitutional, and completely unacceptable conduct from a Republican Senator.
“II. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
The first statement in this section, is the duty which every Democrat Senator has ducked or violated for the past half-decade. Note that there is no enforcement clause to make them obey their duty now. The last sentence is a pile of steaming animal waste product, as it makes no promise whatsoever, that Democrats will not go back to their usurpation the moment they feel like it, and worse, wish to have such violation of their duties blessed as some sort of right or moral obligation. The fact that this clause was even included in the agreement, shows the negligence, bordering on corrupt complicity, of the Republican Senators who agreed to this treachery.
“B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or reinterpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.”
This is an outright surrender by the Republican signatories. The Democrats make no commitment to give up the filibuster, but expect the Republicans to give up their right as the majority party to change the rules when necessary. That any Republican would sign such an agreement, is betrayal of his party, his state, and his nation.
“We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “:Advice speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.”
Having raped the Senate of its rules and authority, these worthies now deign to command the President how he shall present nominees. FDR never had to 'pre-screen' his nominees, nor did Clinton, nor any President in the past. The Senate has always had the right to debate and vote on the merits or doubts of a candidate, but these Senators wish to expand their personal power, to the point of adding an unconstitutional restriction on the President. Here is printed in plain statement, unmitigated gall and arrogance!
“Such a return to the early practices of our government” - This is a lie, and nothing else - “may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
“We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.”
There it is, plainly printed. Democrats have used a power in the past, which they now deny to Republicans by no right but posture and deceit and further, would now claim for themselves not only control of the Senate, but a lever against the President, in order to maintain control of the courts, so that 7 Senators have corrupted another 7, to grant them power over all three branches of the government, through no right or Constitutional mandate, nor the approval of electoral support, but only through arrogance and complicity in avarice. Such brazen contempt for the principles of a Democratic Republic, I have not seen in a long time.
Mark these names, for these villains have leveraged power from a position they do not deserve to hold:
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Mark these names also, for they are villains to their state, their party, and to the nation for violating the trust and duty of their office. Remember them when they come up again for election, and make known the foul fruit of their arrogance:
John McCain (Arizona)
John Warner (Virginia)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Lincoln Chaffee (Rhode Island)
Mike DeWine (Ohio)
Treachery has been done. It falls to us now to answer it, remember it, and when the next election comes, to pay the wages it has brought, in full fury.
There has been much noise about the deal made to avert the Senate vote on whether to actually do the jobs they have been elected to. Anyone who claims this is a “good” deal, either is a Democrat, or has not read the text of the deal. Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the text from the deal made by the 14 Senators, and my comments regarding their implications:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
“We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based on mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future nominations in the 109th Congress.”
First, given the unconstitutional tricks played by Reid and the Democrats for the past five years, to put Reid on the same level as Frist is not only a slap in the face of Dr. Frist, who has performed his work honorably and responsibly, but also denies consequence and accountability for the Democrats’ past offenses. This first paragraph gives the Democrats a pass for their conduct. Note also, that 14 Senators have taken it upon themselves, to declare the rules for the other 86. If usurpation by the minority were not something to fear before, this is an unconscionable advance in political trickery, and should be shouted down for the elitist mindset it advances.
“This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.”
In plain English, this translates to ‘We don’t give a rat’s hindside for what the U.S. Constitution demands we do as Senators. We few have taken upon ourselves to declare the rules and order for all judicial nominations for the foreseeable future.’
“We have agreed to the following:
“Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
“A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owens (5th Circuit).
“B. Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).”
This is outrageous! These 14 bombasts have finally decided that after years of waiting, they are willing to allow floor votes on some judges, all of whose credentials were established long ago. Yet, other judges are specifically and deliberately held to a different standard, on no basis related to their competency, or the need to fill bench vacancies. This, without question, is unconstitutional, and completely unacceptable conduct from a Republican Senator.
“II. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
The first statement in this section, is the duty which every Democrat Senator has ducked or violated for the past half-decade. Note that there is no enforcement clause to make them obey their duty now. The last sentence is a pile of steaming animal waste product, as it makes no promise whatsoever, that Democrats will not go back to their usurpation the moment they feel like it, and worse, wish to have such violation of their duties blessed as some sort of right or moral obligation. The fact that this clause was even included in the agreement, shows the negligence, bordering on corrupt complicity, of the Republican Senators who agreed to this treachery.
“B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or reinterpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.”
This is an outright surrender by the Republican signatories. The Democrats make no commitment to give up the filibuster, but expect the Republicans to give up their right as the majority party to change the rules when necessary. That any Republican would sign such an agreement, is betrayal of his party, his state, and his nation.
“We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “:Advice speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.”
Having raped the Senate of its rules and authority, these worthies now deign to command the President how he shall present nominees. FDR never had to 'pre-screen' his nominees, nor did Clinton, nor any President in the past. The Senate has always had the right to debate and vote on the merits or doubts of a candidate, but these Senators wish to expand their personal power, to the point of adding an unconstitutional restriction on the President. Here is printed in plain statement, unmitigated gall and arrogance!
“Such a return to the early practices of our government” - This is a lie, and nothing else - “may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
“We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.”
There it is, plainly printed. Democrats have used a power in the past, which they now deny to Republicans by no right but posture and deceit and further, would now claim for themselves not only control of the Senate, but a lever against the President, in order to maintain control of the courts, so that 7 Senators have corrupted another 7, to grant them power over all three branches of the government, through no right or Constitutional mandate, nor the approval of electoral support, but only through arrogance and complicity in avarice. Such brazen contempt for the principles of a Democratic Republic, I have not seen in a long time.
Mark these names, for these villains have leveraged power from a position they do not deserve to hold:
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Mark these names also, for they are villains to their state, their party, and to the nation for violating the trust and duty of their office. Remember them when they come up again for election, and make known the foul fruit of their arrogance:
John McCain (Arizona)
John Warner (Virginia)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Lincoln Chaffee (Rhode Island)
Mike DeWine (Ohio)
Treachery has been done. It falls to us now to answer it, remember it, and when the next election comes, to pay the wages it has brought, in full fury.
Monday, May 23, 2005
ALERT CONDITION ADVANCED
[5] [4] [3] [2] [1]
The United States Senate, specifying hostile intentions by the Dark Side Party (aka Democrats), has advanced the Senate Defense Condition, or SENCON, from 4 (elevated) to 3 (full alert), in reaction to Democrat overtures indicating continuing hostility to Constitutional responsibilities and the duty to vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees.
The risk of "nuclear" conflict has increased from "possible" to "probable".
The United States Senate, specifying hostile intentions by the Dark Side Party (aka Democrats), has advanced the Senate Defense Condition, or SENCON, from 4 (elevated) to 3 (full alert), in reaction to Democrat overtures indicating continuing hostility to Constitutional responsibilities and the duty to vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees.
The risk of "nuclear" conflict has increased from "possible" to "probable".
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Sexuality and Morality
><
One quick way to start a fight, is to start discussing sexuality and what is right or wrong about it. Most people, accordingly, would decide to leave that subject be, but ignoring behavior with a moral value is not something Christians are taught to do. So, in discussing the moral aspects of sexual conduct, I also find it necessary to examine the place of the Church, and of Christians, in how we act towards others in a matter or sexual conduct.
In my earlier post concerning Sexuality, I made a point of noting that Scripture has been taken as support for positions condemning Homosexuality which, when examined closer and in context, is not the sum of their statements. Also, I have noted that the Gospel accounts do not show a single statement by Christ which indicts Homosexuals, or which indicates that sexual orientation is a sin. I decided to present my understanding of sexual morals as they apply to Christians.
Before going on, I should note my strong belief that Jesus not only was never married or had children, I am convinced He never had sex. Any claim to the contrary misses a critical part of Jesus’ promise to us; Jesus Christ made God accessible to anyone interested in the relationship, and to equal degree. If Jesus had a girlfriend, let alone a wife and children, that promise is destroyed. This absolute celibacy by Jesus is the motive for Paul’s suggestion that believers should not marry, if they have the self-control to maintain their virginity. It also has the unfortunate effect, of suggesting that only virginity would please God, which is simply not so.
God made every single human being on the planet, and Genesis makes clear that God intended for humans to have children, which has almost always involved sexual intercourse. But more, it is clear from even a superficial reading of Scripture, that God is pleased when a husband and wife love each other, the Song of Songs is pretty specific about the physical pleasures of a couple, and God’s approval.
If I stopped there, Roman Catholics and most of the traditional Protestants would be pretty pleased. But those same Scripures pose other stories, less obvious but no less significant. Jacob and the Lord wrestled at night (Genesis 32:22-25). David and Jonathan were best friends, and some of their contact indicates a more intimate relationship than even brotherhood (1 Samuel 20:3, 20:11, 20:15, for example) . Some of the most important figures in the Bible were prostitutes, like Rahab (Joshua 2:1-24) and many of the women Jesus addressed had been married more than once, were living with a man they were not married to, or otherwise engaging in activities fairly promiscuous for the times, and it is noteworthy to see how He spoke with compassion to them.
Abram had a child by Hagar before he did with his wife, Sarai. Lot was considered a righteous man, but both of his daughters had children with him (Genesis 19:30-36). Tamar disguised herself as a “shrine prostitute” in order to have children to continue the bloodline (Genesis 38:13-30) . The Roman Centurion whose faith Jesus praised (Luke 7:9), seemed to have an unusual personal interest in his servant, yet Jesus had nothing but praise for him.
So, from a Biblical perspective, it becomes clear to me that a lust-driven action offends God, and violence in any relationship is evil. Further, in any relationship, one member dominates, and so is responsible for whatever happens in that relationship. The moral value of any relationship, then, does not depend on its orientation, but on the character of its pursuit, and the commitment of the participants to the other’s well-being and happiness.
I need to say that I am a bit disappointed, that some who asked me by e-mail to post on this issue, have not said anything since I did so. I expect I posted a few things you didn’t expect, but whether or not you agreed with my take, I think it would be a good and desirable thing, for you to make your own thoughts and opinions known. The conversation is too important, for it to be merely a soliloquoy.
One quick way to start a fight, is to start discussing sexuality and what is right or wrong about it. Most people, accordingly, would decide to leave that subject be, but ignoring behavior with a moral value is not something Christians are taught to do. So, in discussing the moral aspects of sexual conduct, I also find it necessary to examine the place of the Church, and of Christians, in how we act towards others in a matter or sexual conduct.
In my earlier post concerning Sexuality, I made a point of noting that Scripture has been taken as support for positions condemning Homosexuality which, when examined closer and in context, is not the sum of their statements. Also, I have noted that the Gospel accounts do not show a single statement by Christ which indicts Homosexuals, or which indicates that sexual orientation is a sin. I decided to present my understanding of sexual morals as they apply to Christians.
Before going on, I should note my strong belief that Jesus not only was never married or had children, I am convinced He never had sex. Any claim to the contrary misses a critical part of Jesus’ promise to us; Jesus Christ made God accessible to anyone interested in the relationship, and to equal degree. If Jesus had a girlfriend, let alone a wife and children, that promise is destroyed. This absolute celibacy by Jesus is the motive for Paul’s suggestion that believers should not marry, if they have the self-control to maintain their virginity. It also has the unfortunate effect, of suggesting that only virginity would please God, which is simply not so.
God made every single human being on the planet, and Genesis makes clear that God intended for humans to have children, which has almost always involved sexual intercourse. But more, it is clear from even a superficial reading of Scripture, that God is pleased when a husband and wife love each other, the Song of Songs is pretty specific about the physical pleasures of a couple, and God’s approval.
If I stopped there, Roman Catholics and most of the traditional Protestants would be pretty pleased. But those same Scripures pose other stories, less obvious but no less significant. Jacob and the Lord wrestled at night (Genesis 32:22-25). David and Jonathan were best friends, and some of their contact indicates a more intimate relationship than even brotherhood (1 Samuel 20:3, 20:11, 20:15, for example) . Some of the most important figures in the Bible were prostitutes, like Rahab (Joshua 2:1-24) and many of the women Jesus addressed had been married more than once, were living with a man they were not married to, or otherwise engaging in activities fairly promiscuous for the times, and it is noteworthy to see how He spoke with compassion to them.
Abram had a child by Hagar before he did with his wife, Sarai. Lot was considered a righteous man, but both of his daughters had children with him (Genesis 19:30-36). Tamar disguised herself as a “shrine prostitute” in order to have children to continue the bloodline (Genesis 38:13-30) . The Roman Centurion whose faith Jesus praised (Luke 7:9), seemed to have an unusual personal interest in his servant, yet Jesus had nothing but praise for him.
So, from a Biblical perspective, it becomes clear to me that a lust-driven action offends God, and violence in any relationship is evil. Further, in any relationship, one member dominates, and so is responsible for whatever happens in that relationship. The moral value of any relationship, then, does not depend on its orientation, but on the character of its pursuit, and the commitment of the participants to the other’s well-being and happiness.
I need to say that I am a bit disappointed, that some who asked me by e-mail to post on this issue, have not said anything since I did so. I expect I posted a few things you didn’t expect, but whether or not you agreed with my take, I think it would be a good and desirable thing, for you to make your own thoughts and opinions known. The conversation is too important, for it to be merely a soliloquoy.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Sexual Conduct
O
I will warn you right up front, this is likely to be a long post, and one which will need follow-ups.
I have received a number of e-mails, requesting I address the issue of Homosexuality in the United States, and also Gay Marriage. I have thought about the issues, read up a bit, prayed on it and decided I would actually prefer to expand the issue to a look at the Morality of Sexual Conduct. You, kind reader, will have to decide the degree of wisdom in my attempt, and the worth of the result.
Because two of the e-mails I received addressed the question from the perspective of Christianity, I will begin with the question of whether or not Homosexuality is sinful. Since human opinion is invariably biased, the logical starting place fro a Christian review would be in the Bible. I found ten citations in the Bible, relevant to the question of Homosexuality. They fall into three categories of note:
General prohibition of homosexuality – Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Specific prohibition against “Male shrine prostitutes” – Deuteronomy 23:17, 1st Kings 14:24 and 15:12 and 22:46, 2nd Kings 23:7
Prohibition against ‘unnatural’ desires – Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Timothy 1:10
First, note that the most references, five of them, show up in reference to male prostitutes at pagan temples. The 1st Corinthian reference also notes them, so 55% of the references are directly connected not to the sexual act itself, but to the idolatry of abandoning God. As for the remaining references, the Old Testament laws were given in the same texts which referenced protecting the tribes from mold and mildew, plague and disease. In other words, the Levitical laws existed for a specific purpose when they were issued, and they could be reconsidered when applied to another circumstance. My basis for saying this, is the fact that Jesus appeared to violate the Law when He healed on the Sabbath, and when He chose not to follow traditional cleansing rituals before eating. In His explanations for these, Jesus made clear that the Pharisees misunderstood the law in that regard. I have another comment from Jesus in mind, but I will save that for a later point, where it is particularly appropriate. That leaves the verses in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and 1st Timothy. But looking at these more closely, we see that Paul was writing about lust and wrongful desires, pursuing earthly wants. Romans 1:28-31 in particular, shows what’s going on, as Paul condemns lust in the same mention as envy, murder, deceit, malice, gossip, greed, arrogance, and disobeying your parents. How many people today consider envy the same thing as murder, or gossip the same thing as rape? Paul is speaking about the need to be perfect.
The next point to make about Homosexuality, is what Jesus had to say about it – nothing. There is not a single quote in Scripture, where Jesus condemns a person for Homosexuality. Given the Roman occupation at the time, and some of the more common Roman customs of the soldiers, there certainly were Homosexuals around which Jesus could have pointed out, but He did not. He neither praised nor condemned any particular sexual behavior, save two occasions of note. In John 8:2-11, a woman was caught in the act of Adultery, and Jesus made His admonition that “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. Also, in Mark 10:2-12, Jesus warns that Moses allowed the law allowing divorce to be written, because men’s hearts were hard, and warning also that “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery”. This is a hard truth, and one which many Christians forget, especially when they consider their own remarried ministers and members.
Over at BeliefNet, a member named ‘The Maven’ made that excellent point. This is not to say that a Christian who has been divorced may not remarry at all, or that divorce is always wrong, but that the commitment of marriage is a sacred thing and no trifle, and to condemn another person is a hateful act which is not at all in keeping with the Lord’s commands.
So, if I had to present a verdict on the morality of Homosexuality, I would say that it is very much like Heterosexuality. If you are only pursuing what you feel like doing, and have no care of attention for your partner, you are using them as a thing, and offending God as you risk great harm to another person. If you are committed to their happiness and welfare, then you do not sin.
As to remarriage, that deserves its own post, which I will work on later. For now, the logical next step is to discuss the so-called ‘Gay Marriage’. Ultimately, there’s three takes on that – the cultural one, the American one, and the moral one. Starting with cultural, people don’t like surprises, and every time something significant shows up on the horizon, there’s people who toss out reasons why it’s bad. On the one hand, I’m not game for revisionist history, or special rights for a group of people. I also strongly believe that no church can or should be compelled to marry Gay people if their doctrine forbids it. That said, it’s nothing but idiocy for the opposite to dominate, like prohibiting a willing church from performing a gay marriage, or denying gays the same rights as anyone else, or automatically treating GLBT as a “risk group”, on the assumption that having a GLBT neighbor, co-worker, boss, friend, or whatever somehow means bad news. Something can be worked out, and will, but hysteria and any sort of phobia is just unacceptable.
On to the American position. That’s pretty simple, really – except for laws which protect children from predators and which encourage families, a GLBT couple should, I would say must, be equal in the eyes of the law to a heterosexual couple. I have heard the ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but those all basically boil down to questions about predatory conduct, which is its own issue. I don’t know if the word ‘marriage’ should be used, since there are connotations to the word that we simply may not be able to address at this time, but there has to be some accommodation that grants people a balance of rights.
On the moral level, it actually comes down to one word – promiscuity. I would be much happier with a son or daughter who marries his love, rather than one who sleeps around, whether gay, bi-, or straight. A married gay couple is committed, monogamous, and that should be encouraged. Period.
I’m going to stop here for a time, for two reasons. First, I expect this is going to be a chunk to weigh and consider. Second, the next issue is the big one about Sexual Morality overall, and that needs a fresh start.
For now, I look forward to your comments and replies. At the least, I hope I will hear back from the people who asked me to post on this topic. Thanks.
I will warn you right up front, this is likely to be a long post, and one which will need follow-ups.
I have received a number of e-mails, requesting I address the issue of Homosexuality in the United States, and also Gay Marriage. I have thought about the issues, read up a bit, prayed on it and decided I would actually prefer to expand the issue to a look at the Morality of Sexual Conduct. You, kind reader, will have to decide the degree of wisdom in my attempt, and the worth of the result.
Because two of the e-mails I received addressed the question from the perspective of Christianity, I will begin with the question of whether or not Homosexuality is sinful. Since human opinion is invariably biased, the logical starting place fro a Christian review would be in the Bible. I found ten citations in the Bible, relevant to the question of Homosexuality. They fall into three categories of note:
General prohibition of homosexuality – Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Specific prohibition against “Male shrine prostitutes” – Deuteronomy 23:17, 1st Kings 14:24 and 15:12 and 22:46, 2nd Kings 23:7
Prohibition against ‘unnatural’ desires – Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Timothy 1:10
First, note that the most references, five of them, show up in reference to male prostitutes at pagan temples. The 1st Corinthian reference also notes them, so 55% of the references are directly connected not to the sexual act itself, but to the idolatry of abandoning God. As for the remaining references, the Old Testament laws were given in the same texts which referenced protecting the tribes from mold and mildew, plague and disease. In other words, the Levitical laws existed for a specific purpose when they were issued, and they could be reconsidered when applied to another circumstance. My basis for saying this, is the fact that Jesus appeared to violate the Law when He healed on the Sabbath, and when He chose not to follow traditional cleansing rituals before eating. In His explanations for these, Jesus made clear that the Pharisees misunderstood the law in that regard. I have another comment from Jesus in mind, but I will save that for a later point, where it is particularly appropriate. That leaves the verses in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and 1st Timothy. But looking at these more closely, we see that Paul was writing about lust and wrongful desires, pursuing earthly wants. Romans 1:28-31 in particular, shows what’s going on, as Paul condemns lust in the same mention as envy, murder, deceit, malice, gossip, greed, arrogance, and disobeying your parents. How many people today consider envy the same thing as murder, or gossip the same thing as rape? Paul is speaking about the need to be perfect.
The next point to make about Homosexuality, is what Jesus had to say about it – nothing. There is not a single quote in Scripture, where Jesus condemns a person for Homosexuality. Given the Roman occupation at the time, and some of the more common Roman customs of the soldiers, there certainly were Homosexuals around which Jesus could have pointed out, but He did not. He neither praised nor condemned any particular sexual behavior, save two occasions of note. In John 8:2-11, a woman was caught in the act of Adultery, and Jesus made His admonition that “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. Also, in Mark 10:2-12, Jesus warns that Moses allowed the law allowing divorce to be written, because men’s hearts were hard, and warning also that “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery”. This is a hard truth, and one which many Christians forget, especially when they consider their own remarried ministers and members.
Over at BeliefNet, a member named ‘The Maven’ made that excellent point. This is not to say that a Christian who has been divorced may not remarry at all, or that divorce is always wrong, but that the commitment of marriage is a sacred thing and no trifle, and to condemn another person is a hateful act which is not at all in keeping with the Lord’s commands.
So, if I had to present a verdict on the morality of Homosexuality, I would say that it is very much like Heterosexuality. If you are only pursuing what you feel like doing, and have no care of attention for your partner, you are using them as a thing, and offending God as you risk great harm to another person. If you are committed to their happiness and welfare, then you do not sin.
As to remarriage, that deserves its own post, which I will work on later. For now, the logical next step is to discuss the so-called ‘Gay Marriage’. Ultimately, there’s three takes on that – the cultural one, the American one, and the moral one. Starting with cultural, people don’t like surprises, and every time something significant shows up on the horizon, there’s people who toss out reasons why it’s bad. On the one hand, I’m not game for revisionist history, or special rights for a group of people. I also strongly believe that no church can or should be compelled to marry Gay people if their doctrine forbids it. That said, it’s nothing but idiocy for the opposite to dominate, like prohibiting a willing church from performing a gay marriage, or denying gays the same rights as anyone else, or automatically treating GLBT as a “risk group”, on the assumption that having a GLBT neighbor, co-worker, boss, friend, or whatever somehow means bad news. Something can be worked out, and will, but hysteria and any sort of phobia is just unacceptable.
On to the American position. That’s pretty simple, really – except for laws which protect children from predators and which encourage families, a GLBT couple should, I would say must, be equal in the eyes of the law to a heterosexual couple. I have heard the ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but those all basically boil down to questions about predatory conduct, which is its own issue. I don’t know if the word ‘marriage’ should be used, since there are connotations to the word that we simply may not be able to address at this time, but there has to be some accommodation that grants people a balance of rights.
On the moral level, it actually comes down to one word – promiscuity. I would be much happier with a son or daughter who marries his love, rather than one who sleeps around, whether gay, bi-, or straight. A married gay couple is committed, monogamous, and that should be encouraged. Period.
I’m going to stop here for a time, for two reasons. First, I expect this is going to be a chunk to weigh and consider. Second, the next issue is the big one about Sexual Morality overall, and that needs a fresh start.
For now, I look forward to your comments and replies. At the least, I hope I will hear back from the people who asked me to post on this topic. Thanks.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Fiction As Truth
[]
Over on BeliefNet, I have been plunking away at posts regarding the Jedi. Yeah, Luke Skywalker and Yoda and all that lot. But in a way, not them at all.
The “Star Wars” stories worked, in my sometimes-garrulous opinion, because of the basic themes in them – Heroism, Justice, Humor, and Action. Basically, the first movie was good, but it was the inspiration of the Ideals of the Jedi, which made the films truly epic. At least, until Lucas decided to demote ‘The Force’ to blood chemistry, and imposed Jar-Jar Binks on us at the same time.
But fiction has always had its effect, and often for good purpose. Shakespeare’s plays were fiction, yet have been quoted at great length for centuries. Even people who believe the Bible is nothing more than allegory and symbolism, admit it has powerful lessons and moral value. And whole generations have grown up memorizing the signal lines from their favorite works.
I miss the writer Roger Zelazny, a peculiar man I did not agree with at all in his choice of faith and in many of his cultural assumptions. Yet he was a compelling writer, the sort of man who could tell you about his breakfast in a way that could mesmerize.
I liked the way Dusko Doder could create a complete image of Moscow, so you could feel the excitement of the first spring thaw, and feel a belonging to the communities in varying places.
I found Plato’s arguments compelling, written in a style which captured not only his reasoning, but the passion behind his convictions.
We live in a world obsessed with fact. Good fiction reminds us to watch for the greater truth, even when there is no fact at all in its source. You might laugh at Obi-Wan Kenobi, but to do so is an admission that he exists at some level.
Over on BeliefNet, I have been plunking away at posts regarding the Jedi. Yeah, Luke Skywalker and Yoda and all that lot. But in a way, not them at all.
The “Star Wars” stories worked, in my sometimes-garrulous opinion, because of the basic themes in them – Heroism, Justice, Humor, and Action. Basically, the first movie was good, but it was the inspiration of the Ideals of the Jedi, which made the films truly epic. At least, until Lucas decided to demote ‘The Force’ to blood chemistry, and imposed Jar-Jar Binks on us at the same time.
But fiction has always had its effect, and often for good purpose. Shakespeare’s plays were fiction, yet have been quoted at great length for centuries. Even people who believe the Bible is nothing more than allegory and symbolism, admit it has powerful lessons and moral value. And whole generations have grown up memorizing the signal lines from their favorite works.
I miss the writer Roger Zelazny, a peculiar man I did not agree with at all in his choice of faith and in many of his cultural assumptions. Yet he was a compelling writer, the sort of man who could tell you about his breakfast in a way that could mesmerize.
I liked the way Dusko Doder could create a complete image of Moscow, so you could feel the excitement of the first spring thaw, and feel a belonging to the communities in varying places.
I found Plato’s arguments compelling, written in a style which captured not only his reasoning, but the passion behind his convictions.
We live in a world obsessed with fact. Good fiction reminds us to watch for the greater truth, even when there is no fact at all in its source. You might laugh at Obi-Wan Kenobi, but to do so is an admission that he exists at some level.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Bringing Fiction To Life
...
It had to end, I know. But it still surprised me a little, and moved me within, to read the final fictional dispatch from the equally fictional Anakin Skywalker, aka Darth Vader.
The writer, who is almost completely anonymous (his page shows “MFDH” at the bottom, and some of the links reference http://mfdh.ca ) , has written a brilliant account of the Star Wars saga from the perspective of Anakin Skywalker, and a better one you will not find, even from George Lucas.
Some people will see the ‘Star Wars’ analogy and roll their eyes. I saw a portrayal of conflict, redemption, and discovery, and think others will as well.
It had to end, I know. But it still surprised me a little, and moved me within, to read the final fictional dispatch from the equally fictional Anakin Skywalker, aka Darth Vader.
The writer, who is almost completely anonymous (his page shows “MFDH” at the bottom, and some of the links reference http://mfdh.ca ) , has written a brilliant account of the Star Wars saga from the perspective of Anakin Skywalker, and a better one you will not find, even from George Lucas.
Some people will see the ‘Star Wars’ analogy and roll their eyes. I saw a portrayal of conflict, redemption, and discovery, and think others will as well.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The Master On War
<.>
Right Wing News has a great selection of quotes by George S. Patton, which I find especially fitting for the present condition. I also have little trouble imagining his reaction to the pessimists and limp-spined expectations of the Left.
To those in Congress talking about delaying Judicial And Social Security Reform:
“A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week”
To those who think accommodation with the Democratic Minority is preferable to pushing through on the programs Republicans promised to get through:
“Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.”
To those who count our losses and worry:
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”
To those who think we should quit and go home:
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the b*stards who started it.”
To those who think we are doing too much right now:
“I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood.”
To those who say we need to wait until we have everything line up just so:
“We have got by due to persistence and on the ability to make plans fit circumstances. The other armies try to make circumstances fit plans.”
And if he were here right now, I have absolutely no doubt that General Patton would have two words for Senate Majority Leader Frist, on the matter of the unconstitutional tactic of a minority using the filibuster to prevent a simple vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees:
“NUKE ‘EM”
Right Wing News has a great selection of quotes by George S. Patton, which I find especially fitting for the present condition. I also have little trouble imagining his reaction to the pessimists and limp-spined expectations of the Left.
To those in Congress talking about delaying Judicial And Social Security Reform:
“A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week”
To those who think accommodation with the Democratic Minority is preferable to pushing through on the programs Republicans promised to get through:
“Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.”
To those who count our losses and worry:
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”
To those who think we should quit and go home:
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the b*stards who started it.”
To those who think we are doing too much right now:
“I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood.”
To those who say we need to wait until we have everything line up just so:
“We have got by due to persistence and on the ability to make plans fit circumstances. The other armies try to make circumstances fit plans.”
And if he were here right now, I have absolutely no doubt that General Patton would have two words for Senate Majority Leader Frist, on the matter of the unconstitutional tactic of a minority using the filibuster to prevent a simple vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees:
“NUKE ‘EM”
Monday, May 16, 2005
Discussing Christ
*
Over at BeliefNet, I have noticed that the anti-Christian-Churchers have become agitated again. Now, I need to be careful here, because when I say “anti-Christian-Churchers”, I choose that clumsy term (which I will call ACC’s from this point going on) , because I most definitely do not mean to call them ‘Anti-Christ’; that term is for a real sort of people, but would be wrong in this case. The ACCss are people with a grievance, real or imagined, against the Church, and they are influenced by the emotion of that grievance. This leads to conflict on the BeliefNet site, sometimes instigated by the ACC’s, sometimes by the Christians, and sometimes it comes up through misunderstanding. At the moment, I would have to say that well over 80% of the threads on the main board discussing Christianity are contentious, and serve no purpose but bickering.
This raises the question, of how Christians should discuss the Christ. A great amount of confusion is out there, and worse, a lot of bad example. There can be no doubt that satan loves to get his claws into a church, and play it into his own purpose. Greed, lust, all manner of evil has shown up in these churches, and chased people away from the truth. What is to be done?
The first point, obviously, is to examine my own conduct and words. It’s so easy to see the error someone else makes, that one often ignores his own error. Also, a Christian needs to grow, and their work should reflect that growth in the fruit of his efforts. When someone stops to examine someone else, they must be careful to consider what effect they are sowing.
But what next?
Over at BeliefNet, I have noticed that the anti-Christian-Churchers have become agitated again. Now, I need to be careful here, because when I say “anti-Christian-Churchers”, I choose that clumsy term (which I will call ACC’s from this point going on) , because I most definitely do not mean to call them ‘Anti-Christ’; that term is for a real sort of people, but would be wrong in this case. The ACCss are people with a grievance, real or imagined, against the Church, and they are influenced by the emotion of that grievance. This leads to conflict on the BeliefNet site, sometimes instigated by the ACC’s, sometimes by the Christians, and sometimes it comes up through misunderstanding. At the moment, I would have to say that well over 80% of the threads on the main board discussing Christianity are contentious, and serve no purpose but bickering.
This raises the question, of how Christians should discuss the Christ. A great amount of confusion is out there, and worse, a lot of bad example. There can be no doubt that satan loves to get his claws into a church, and play it into his own purpose. Greed, lust, all manner of evil has shown up in these churches, and chased people away from the truth. What is to be done?
The first point, obviously, is to examine my own conduct and words. It’s so easy to see the error someone else makes, that one often ignores his own error. Also, a Christian needs to grow, and their work should reflect that growth in the fruit of his efforts. When someone stops to examine someone else, they must be careful to consider what effect they are sowing.
But what next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
