Archive for May, 2009

« Older Entries

Outside Los Angeles for ACMI 2009

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

My first time in California.

ACMI is Association of Christians Ministering with Internationals – an umbrella network/organization for those who minister among internationals. (And by internationals they tend to mean not refugees and not even immigrants so much as visiting academics – students scholars and so on. This is an important clarification.)

At Azusa Pacific University in Azusa California. Weather has been very mild even cool at times. Mostly overcast. There are hills – perhaps small mountains! – here. Staying in the dorms which frankly is nice and convenient. (I like when ACMI meets at a college/university. Food and lodging and meetings all in one place.) The food is very good!

On a personal note I came with my first case of poison ivy(?) since childhood. Note to future self – next time you have a medical problem get it taken care of before you leave town. $100 at emergency room instead of $20 with primary care physician back home. It did need attention because it was spreading and was beginning to hurt noticeably – the ache and burning and itching. Calamine was not doing the job. The shot in the left shoulder was painful and I could hardly use the arm for a couple hours.

The plenary sessions have been good to excellent. Worship has been multicultural and multilingual which I greatly love. Praising God in other languages such as Twi Swahili and Hindi!

First plenary session on emerging technologies. Facebook and Web 2.0 just might not be totally evil. Just might actually be helpful in ministry and maintaining/developing relationships. Just do not overdo it. (See third plenary.)

Second plenary on whether Christians will include Muslims and the Islamic world in the Great Commission. Or because of 9/11 will like Jonah basically say “to hell with them”. Very powerful presentation.

Third session tonight was on China. Where is it going? Will it become a Christian nation? (I would ask “what exactly does that mean? a theocracy? or a nation full of Christians who greatly influence society and culture?” I can support the latter but not the former – I do believe passionately in religious freedom.) What kind of Christianity will China embrace? One important point the speaker frequently raised is that Chinese Christians love their nation. If American Christians make disparaging remarks about China (as in the Chinese government) that is extremely unhelpful! At the same time she spoke plainly about how the goal of the CCP (Chinese Community Party) is to maintain power and stability. And they will co-opt anything (such as a rebirth of Confucianism) in order to perpetuate a one party state.

(I wondered “does that include Christianity? Is it possible for even the Christian faith to be co-opted in order to serve the interests and perpetuate the power of the state? I also wanted to ask if – given this Chinese propensity – democracy is inherently incompatible with Chinese culture. I do not think so – but I wondered if she realized what she implied even as she explicitly denied this is the case.)

Wonderful chances for networking. Praise God for the brave souls who do not know me and yet walk over and ask if they can join me for dinner. I have been meeting (eating) and talking with (1) others who do international ministry in south Louisiana – networking! (2) others who serve an “international church” rather than para-church international ministry and to a lesser extent (3) fellow Baptists doing this. How Southern Baptists in ISM (international student ministry) organize is in a state of perpetual flux. I normally am graciously invited and included in meetings and conversations. That did not happen this year. It appears entirely unintentional.

There are at least two CBF missionaries here also. I hope to find them.

I want to make a couple quick comments about prayer and worship – and this is where I may wax rude judgmental and arrogant.

Worship is not performance.

Let me say that again. Worship is not performance.

I wish worship leaders did not add mini-sermons. “We are going to worship God because blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda awesome great awesome awesome just so holy awesome we just want to blah blah blah”. Please stop talking. Just play and/or sing and let us worship. And then they add stuff in the middle of songs or between sogs. Please stop talking. Just play and/or sin and let us worship.

That they got up and had us “worship” again after the Chinese scholar spoke was – and how can one say this with some restraint – inappropriate. Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony the fourth movement just reached its climx… and then you want to get on stage and start talking again. Stop! Please stop! It was a beautiful powerful moment that should not have been spoiled with more blah blah blah.

Do not tell people to stand up. That drives me up a tree. Invite us to stand. But do not just tell us. Even the Book of Common Prayer uses the word may all over the place.

Prayer as performance. I think some people think of prayer as performance. “Look how earnest and passionate I am!” I am sure the motives are sincere – to lead the people of God to prayer earnestly passionately and fervently. I am increasingly convinced of the wisdom of simple dignified prayers – and that are set. The temptation to turn prayer into self-promoting performance is just too great. We stumble and uh and ah and just this and just that father weejuz weejuz weejuz. Here we discern the wisdom of Catholic or Anglican or Orthodox liturgy.

Someone else composed this. And it has stood the test of time. And reflects the wisdom of centuries of Christians before us. Not our little “thrown together right now on stage uh uh uh weejez aaaaaaaaaaaameeeeeeeehn“. Oh puleez.

I apologize. That is judgmental and rude. But I care about public prayer and worship and have some rather strong ideas about them. Why is it not enough to say “Father God we ask you to remember this person or that situation” and leave it at that? Why do we tell things God already knows? Why do we presume to tell him exacty how to handle these situations? (And yes I do these things myself. Chief of hypocrites at your service.)

Posted in Christianity, Internationals, Ministry, Personal, Travel, Uncategorized | No Comments »

REVIEW – "Terminator Salvation"

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

In a nutshell – I thought it was much better than the mediocre or even negative reviews led me to expect.

I read enjoy and respect Big Hollywood. John Nolte was not kind to “Terminator Salvation”.

What a crushing and noisy disappointment this is. For whatever reason, Director McG’s fourth chapter in the “Terminator” franchise tosses aside the simple but successful plot template that made its predecessors so memorable and goes all “Bourne” with a hyper-complicated plot, narcissistic “hero” and a big fat wide blur between the concept of good battling evil. Yes, welcome to Hollywood’s post-Bush “Terminator,” where a militaristic Resistance demands we “Stay the course,” Terminators work through their feelings, and John Connor runs off to find himself only to end up in a numbingly dull third act that plays like a direct-to-DVD toss off.

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

I still respect Nolte of course. But I enjoyed the film. I did not think it was as sullen and dull and lacking-in-warmth as many critics (not just Nolte) argued. My daughter rather pithily commented, “If people want warmth they should watch a chick flick”. (Hey um Big Hollywood? Got an opening for a twelve year old?) I thought the story was engaging. The pacing tense. Some of the acting genuinely touching.

Let me offer a couple quick and mild criticisms centering on the character of Marcus Wright.

{WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!}

He is indeed a sympathetic character. But believable? This person was sentenced to death for the murder of his brother and two police officers. How then does this person come off as so noble and selfless? Is it programming?

And the movie never quite explains just how that whole “Marcus gives his body to science [read Cyberdyne] and ends up working for Skynet” thing works. Is the doctor sent back in time by Skynet? Is she human? If so – what does she think she is doing? Was it an experiment in making benign cyborgs that gets coopted by Skynet? This part of the plot is just too full of holes to ignore.

Now – I understand why more conservative reviewers think there is a post-Bush dig on the war against terror. “They are the machines. We are human. We are supposed to behave like humans”. Fair enough.

But is it that obvious? And is there a counterargument? Do conservatives wish to argue that… argue what exactly? Do we not often argue that one of the problems with liberalism is that too often liberalism assumes the end justifies the means? That results do not matter only motives? (“Well we are trying to help the poor. Does not matter if the result is generations of broken families enmeshed in poverty”.)

Moreover – does not the movie imply that we are defined by our decisions more than our nature? Do we not often argue that liberals emphasize too much “this is what you are” – as if background and ethnicity and orientation determine destiny? Is it not conservatives who tend to argue “yeah sure that is who you are and where you are from – but you have a choice“? And that is precisely the point of Marcus Wright.

Marcus breaks free from his destiny. He chooses against his programming. “There is no fate but what you make”. Surely conservatives can celebrate that!

Anton Yelchin (as Kyle Reese) is much better here than in “Star Trek” (where the Russian navigator Chekhov cannot pronounce the phoneme v). I admit that Kate Connor’s pregnancy is completely and strangely ignored.

I think the movie deserves better than the 33% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. If you enjoy the “Terminator” movies – see it! You do not have to wait for the DVD.

Posted in Movies and film, Science Fiction | No Comments »

Marketing versus(?) evangelism (or) Centripetal ecclesiology

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

Outreach.

Churches agonize about it. Well at least this one does. But listen and observe carefully how people talk about it and attempt to engage in it.

Spend thousands of dollars on slick postcards to the community. “There’s a place for you here!” Where we are. Little map. Schedule of worship and other activities. Colorful picture. Actually quite well done.

Debates about whether and how often to advertize in the local newspaper. Cutting back just a bit. About whether to continue shelling out enormous sums for a presence in the yellow pages.

And oh yeah we got yellow “visitors’ bags”. Full of papers and brochures about different ministries within the church. All very informative. And maybe boring at times.

Recently the discussion has shifted to administration and procedures. How do we handle visitor information? How do we follow up with visitors? Letter. Phone call – not too many or they feel harrassed! Dare we visit?

And recently significant changes in our primary software suite for membership management. Automated Church Systems aka ACS. Not longer hosting it locally but now with their server – we access it remotely. Costs more – but now they are responsible for installations and upgrades and backups. Frankly this represents a dramatic improvement.

Leverage a module within ACS we have never used before. So that an “outreach coordinator” in each Sunday school class can enter visitor information. Coordinate follow up. Report results.

Do you see where this is going?

I have been struck by this curious emphasis on the mechanics of outreach – where outreach means “letting people know about our church such that they come here… and then they want to come back… and join and/or participate… and it would be nice if they contribute financially”.

In a way – evangelism as marketing.

Let me throw something else on the table. Recent discussions about Sunday school. Deep concern about how the numbers have been dropping steadily for the last several years. Meetings with parents of children and youth to find out what they want. Because – and I am sure you have heard this plenty of times – “they are the future”.

Parents with children – and those children/youth – are the “future of the church”.

My ministerial colleagues chafe somewhat against the “the young are the future of the church” talk. Because what does that say about our seniors? They are the past? They are obsolete? And what does it say about our children and youth and hey throw in the youngish families or the pre-seniors? That if they are the future they must by implication not be the present?

I am deeply troubled when churches talk about “outreach” (growing the church numerically) as a marketing/mechanical problem. “If we have the right tools and mechanisms… if you use this software… designate these people to implement certain procedures and processes… if we put together just the right mailings and website… then people will flock to us and join”.

My seminary teacher (yes professor but “teacher” strikes a more affectionate tone) Isam Ballenger taught that there are centripetal as well as centrifugal forces in Christian mission. What does that mean? That yes the church “goes out” to say and do things. We go and tell people about Jesus. We go and serve others in the name of Jesus. This is the centrifugal movement. “Go get them!”

But we often overlook the centripetal movement. To what extent do we evangelize simply by being the church? By our prayer our worship our life in communion with each other and by holy living? Such that people are drawn into the Christian church because they are attracted. And/or – in tension with the centrifugal – once we have “gone out and gotten them” they actually want to stay and be a part of this? This is the centripetal movement. “Bring them in / they will come”.

Congratulations! You have spent thousands and successfully gotten twenty people to visit your church on that groovy Sunday when you have a special worship service. You greeted them. Gave them bags. Got their information. Called and wrote and maybe even visited them.

Why should they come back?

I am not convinced that growing the church numerically is necessarily or always the product of mechanics and marketing and procedures. Because the church is not – or at least it jolly well should not be – another social service agency or another religious social club. “Come join our organization! We are nice people who do nice things! You should be part of this too!”

{WILL FINISH THIS LATER WHEN I GET HOME AND HAVE ACCESS TO A CERTAIN RESOURCE}

Posted in Christianity, Ecclesiology, Missiology | No Comments »

Hoisted on their own petard (or) Democrats *prove* why they are irrelevant

Monday, May 18th, 2009

Here is one I have never shared. Wright’s Third Generalization:

Whenever someone is in error, he/she will not merely contradict himself/herself, but will refute himself/herself. This does not logically have to happen, but it is what happens consistently.

(Once during a rather nice lunch at a Japanese restaurant with Cornell professor Jeremy Rabkin I shared this. Professor Rabkin replied, “In other words, the truth will always come out”. I rather liked that and have since labelled this “Rabkin’s Corollary to Wright’s Third Generalization”.)

The Anglican Curmudgeon is – and I say this will all admiration – ruthlessly logical. In a recent piece he follows a liberal/Democratic mantra to its logical conclusion. Are you ready? Here goes:

Now just ponder the logical implications of this position [RW - citing an argument in a recent piece by Maureen Dowd]  for a moment. Do you see what it implies? Let me spell out the hidden syllogism for you:

A. When the Democrats are not in power, what happens is all the Republicans’ fault.
B. When the Democrats are in power, it is still all the Republicans’ fault.

Now, from this beginning, those on the left would like to draw this conclusion:

C. Therefore, whatever happens, and whenever it happens, it is all the Republicans’ fault.

What their petty little minds fail to realize, however, is that this is the only really logical conclusion to follow from the given premises:

C. Why would anyone ever put the Democrats in power, since they can never affect anything for the better, and cannot prevent anything from getting worse?

In other words, all the heat and venom being spilled over former president Bush, former vice president Cheney and the so-called torture of waterboarding just goes to point up that the Democrats themselves are admitting that they are irrelevant. [emphasis in original]

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

At Baptistlife.Com – in which I no longer participate – we had an exchange about this with regard to the economy. I pointed out that the bad economy which President Obama “inherited” could indeed be blamed partly on the Republicans and the Bush Administration. I am not aware of any Republican or conservative American who does not concede that Bush 43 and the Republicans during his administration bear at least partial responsibility for the current economic downturn. (Which itself is an important point to which I shall return in a moment.)

But – I argued strongly – if the economy has gotten worse since President Obama took office one cannot blame that on Bush and the Republicans. Once President Obama takes office he effectively – so long as nothing else has changed – takes responsibility for the health of the economy (and foreign policy and so on).

My fellow Baptist friends of course disagreed.

Now granted it is dangerous to use a syllogism to override the gives-and-takes of a more detailed argument… but I would suggest that what the Anglican Curmudgeon demonstrates is applicable here. Do you really want to say no matter what happens after President Obama takes office it is still the fault of the previous administration?

Oh wait – if something bad happens blame the previous administration.

If something good happens let the current administration take credit.

What I find more offensive is this “heads you lose, tails I win” argumentation. It renders you – by definition – unaccountable. There is no evidence that could possibly call into question the effectiveness of your policies. (Harvard economist Greg Mankiw makes a similar point well in a recent post.)

Let me return to this “Conservatives and Republicans are willing to lay some blame at the feet of Bush 43 and the Republicans” point.

Those who support strongly the Democratic party and the Obama presidency – does it never strike them as odd and even problematic that Republicans/conservatives are willing to admit some mistakes and failures…

But does one ever see a liberal or Democrat concede mistakes and failures on the part of President Obama and the Democrats?

This is going to be… what… the third or fourth time I have had to make this point? Here goes:

More conservative participants on this forum have been candid and willing to lay a nice chunk of the blame at the feet of Bush 43 and Republicans in Congress. As well as specific actions and policies by Democrats. The Wall Street Journal piece (or other pieces one could quote) does not “prove that Bush is not responsible for the economic mess”. Such misrepresents both the piece and my own post.

(I will repeat my challenge to more liberal and/or Democratic participants on this forum. If conservatives/Republicans are willing to blame Bush/Republicans as well as Democrats… then are they willing to concede how Democrats share responsibility for the crisis? Bi-partisanship and all that you know.)

More than once I issued this challenge – and to my knowledge never did receive a reply.

As Anglican Curmudgeon asks (in the context of a post on Speaker Pelosi):

What is it about the left’s mindset that makes them constitutionally incapable of ever accepting any responsibility for something that might make them (at least in their eyes) look bad?

Precisely.

Actually there might be an answer. It has to do with psychology and motivations. If one is motivated primarily by ego (the desire to look good and feel good about yourself) rather than by truth (which means you sometimes fall short and are willing to admit it).

Addendum (06/02/09): I later realized there is a serious flaw with the above post and its title. It sounds like I am saying “the Democratic party and/or Democrats are irrelevant – or at least they should be”. That was not my intent. Such an implication would be disrespectful narrow-minded and just all around stupid. The intent was to critique a specific argument or mantra – the one marked in red above.

Readers of this blog may know (or not) that since moving to Louisiana I have (excuse me – had) changed my voting pattern. I have voted for Democrats. Why? Because I am a firm centrist. In New York the Republicans are liberal and the Democrats are very liberal – so I vote for Republicans always because they are closer to the center. Since moving to Louisiana – some Republicans are just so outrageously far to the right that I have voted for the Democratic candidate. We need the Democratic party and Democrats – even if/when I disagree with policies and platforms. A one party state is not healthy.

I mean – imagine if there were only the Republican party and the Republicans were 100% in charge… and it went to their heads. We might get something like – oh I do not know – something like 2000-2008. (Which is not to say the Bush II Administration was all bad by no means. But vastly expanding government and budgets and deficits and frankly President Bush is the one who started all this TARP/bailout idiocy. Some of President Obama’s worst policies are simply expanded continuations from the previous.)

Posted in Economics, Logic and Reason, Media, Politics, Rhetoric | 2 Comments »

Political favoritism untrammelled by the rule of law (or) Tincture of Obamaism

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

George Will again nails it with his recent article on how the Obama Administration governs.

The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

He cites the Obama Administration’s efforts on behalf of unions in California and in the auto industry. Contracts shmontracts. You lose most of your investment but his friends gain control of a major manufacturing corporation. And if you complain he threatens you on national television. Sweet.

Will summarizes:

The Obama administration’s agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of “economic planning” and “social justice” that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

Read the whole thing at Townhall. You do not have to register.

Posted in Economics, Media, News, Politics | No Comments »

President Obama is not really a liberal (or) The Alinsky Administration

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Let us review Wright’s First Principle of Epistemology shall we?

In any given set of data, the anamolous elements are the key to explaining the whole.

In other words – to understand the pattern focus on what does not fit the pattern. (Nearly every mystery/crime story turns on this point.)

Yes President Obama is the single most leftist-statist president the United States has ever elected. But not consistently so. Several Bush Administration policies which Candidate Obama promised to end President Obama will continue. Will not back down on “health care reform” but will back down on releasing photos of detainee interrogations.

What common theme unites everything this current president says and does?

Jim Geraughty explains brilliantly the key to understanding President Barack Hussein Obama. Oh we knew about it but did not really pay close attention to it.

(1) Saul Alinsky author of Rules for Radicals and of whom Barack Hussein was a student. And (2) Power.

Geraughty summarizes:

Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.

As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it …

It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. You do not have to register.

Yes. Yes that would explain a lot. It might explain everything.

I do have one question thought.

Okay so it is all about expanding and maintaining power. But power to what end? Why does President Obama not use his power to encourage (even a minimally regulated form of) free market capitalism?

Posted in Politics, Propaganda | No Comments »

Great moments in procedural subversion (or) Episcopal Church rolls ++Cantuar in Jamaica

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Spellbinding.

Apparently the Anglican Consultative Council (number 14 to be exact) finished meeting in Jamaica. The big issue on the table was an Anglican Covenant. Sign it and you are part of the Anglican Covenant and everything is groovy. Unfortunately for the American church (aka the Episcopal Church) and their liberal allies the Anglican Covenant contains theology. And not just any old theology. Christian theology. Oh and discipline so that there are consequences for heresy or un-Christian behavior. The Americans have been openly against the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Now what happened to this Anglican Covenant… no one is entirely sure… but basically last Friday, May 08 weirdness and confusion reigned supreme. The Anglican Covenant was not approved – indeed so far as I can tell is did not get voted on but was punted down the road by handing it to the very stacked with liberals Joint Standing Committee. Sort of a relatively new Anglican Central Committee tovarisch.

The details – insofar as one can discern them – are disturbing. But the evidence seems to boil down to this. The Americans and their allies brilliantly subverted the process and basically took the Archbishop of Canterbury for a ride.

What a second - what just happened?!?

The word “perfidy” – so old and so delicious – has been brought out of retirement to describe what the Americans and their allies managed last week(end).

Rather than attempt to explain it all let me simply direct your attention to relevant postings at:

Shine Perishing Communion (Anglican Curmudgeon – perhaps the most brilliant and thorough of the commentators/analysts)

How it all happened: Let’s go to the videotape (Baby Blue Cafe – excellent as a source of information and links as well as analysis)

The Bait and Switch of the Anglican Covenant (Baby Blue Cafe)

Anglican Communion Institute statement on the Anglican Consultative Council

Report from ACC-14: Day 8 (Rev Philip Ashey of the American Anglican Council)

Anglican Covenant: Where do we go from here? (Rev Prof Stephen Noll)

Let me close with this quote from Chris Sugden:

So was this a conspiracy or was it a cock-up?  Whichever it was it is a case study of how to win if you are a minority in a meeting.  If matters are going against you, get a team to work, introduce endless amendments to the resolution you do not like to spin out the debate, introduce a competing proposal, have a chair who is known to be on your side who has a vote and allows discussion of the proposal out of order, a person to present the material as a formal amendment, the president of the meeting to point out to people what is being intended, and also to interpret to the meeting its own decisions in a way that would allow this intention to come to fruition, and a chair who proceeds swiftly to a vote on this amendment having allowed extensive debate on the first resolution that was thought would be cleared out of the way quickly.

Read the whole thing here at Anglican Mainstream.

What is amazing is how a tiny percentage of the entire Anglican Communion gets its way gets its way gets it way – even at meetings where a majority of the representatives (a smaller majority – since the number of representatives is not proportional to how many Anglican Christians you have in your province) disagree with the Americans and the Canadians. Read the posts – and please pardon the “violence” metaphor but it appears that the Americans and their allies lost every single fight.

But won the battle.

There are many (especially who are American Episcopalians) who say this is a good thing and hopeful and means the Anglican Communion will stay together.

I am not so sure.

It may take a while but let me suggest what I would be thinking in Nigeria or Uganda or any of the other large Global South provinces.

“The ‘instruments of unity’ have been so utterly coopted and subverted by the liberal minority… who brilliantly lie and manipulate every meeting we have to deal with this crisis…

To heck with it. We quit. No more Anglican Communion. Because we refuse to associate with fundamentally dishonest and wicked people”.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Invasion of the Obamatrons (or) Oh it could never happen here!

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

(Some people will read this and think Rick has really gone off the deep end. Paranoid alarmist and offensive. Fair enough.)

There is a thought that troubles me.

If (hypothetically of course) you have someone who is a hardcore Marxist who wants to take over the United States and transform it into a totalitarian socialist utopia – what would that look like? And who could stop it?

No seriously. Think about it for a moment.

You may reply “Oh it could never happen here. America will always remain basically a Constitutional republic in which the people are basically free. We would never allow the formation of a totalitarian government that seeks to control everything we say and believe and do”.

Consider for a moment. Imagine you could travel in time and go back to:

  • Russia before the Communist Revolution
  • Germany before the ascendancy of the Nationalist Socialist party
  • Iran before the Islamic Revolution
  • Cuba before the Communist Revolution
  • Chile before Pinochet
  • Argentina before the Junta
  • Liberia before the Civil War
  • Rwanda before the genocide
  • Yugoslavia before its breakup
  • China before the Communist Revolution
  • England before Oliver Cromwell
  • France before the Revolution
  • Italy before the Fascists
  • Spain before the Civil War
  • Venezuela before Hugo Chavez
  • Cambodia before Pol Pot

And describe to the citizens of those nations what will happen to them five or ten years down the road. How many people would refuse to believe it? How many would say with all sincerity and conviction “oh it could never happen here! We are too civilized! We have the rule of law! We would never allow it!”

And yet it did happen. And in some cases – not all – the people very much allowed it.

Now before I proceed let me make two points clearly and for the record:

  1. In no way whatsoever am I suggesting hinting or implying that President Barack Obama is somehow similar or analogous to Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ayatollah Khomeini, and so on. At this stage I am making an historical point. Nothing more.
  2. In no way do I suggest that all of these nations had/have no serious economic-social-political problems or are/were not in need of some urgent reforms. However I will suggest that most people in most or all of the above situations would have said “yes we need change – but what you tell me is going to happen five to ten years from now is much worse”. Germany in the 1930’s had serious problems – but Adolf Hitler was not the answer.

What if once upon a time a young man whose social-political ideology was essentially Marxist wanted to obtain political power and transform the United States into a (totalitarian? maybe but not necessarily) Marxist state? But do so peacefully and with the support and cooperation of a majority or at least the more powerful plurality of the American citizenry. And then consolidate social-economic-political power such that even if a majority or a sizable plurality of the American population objected to these radical transformations there would be nothing they could do. The changes would become permanent.

Not only “we won” but “and now we can never ever lose”.

Tell me – what would it look like?

Tell me – how could one stop it from happening?

Now I will show you some of my cards.

I am not quite prepared to say “President Obama is a Marxist (or a socialist or whatever)”. He may well be. I think the evidence suggests he is either a real live American Marxist or the closest things we have had to a Marxist president. I do not want to use that word Marxist because it is a label – even if it may be accurate – and labels can be slippery things. And people tend to laugh at and dismiss you when you use such labels – even when they are accurate. They sound so alarmist! And heck – maybe Marxism is a good thing. Maybe we should welcome the direction in which President Obama would have us go as a nation. We can debate that.

At the very least his Senate voting record placed him to the left of the only self-described Socialist in the United States Senate (Bernie Sanders of Vermont). And so far it appears he is more or less working to accomplish government control and management of the the American no-longer-free-market economy. First the banks. Then corporations. Next health care.

(Yes I am aware that the federal government has not really “taken over” these things. But it most certainly is establishing a “controlling interest” in them.)

Tell me – what would it look like?

Would said young man go on national television and say “hi – I am an avowed Marxist who believes in redistributing wealth… in government control of business and finance… in government oversight of universal health care. Please vote for me!”

Probably not.

Or would said young man more likely present himself as a populist reformer… friend of the middle class (as well as of the poor and certainly no enemy of the rich)… as a uniter not a divider… as a non-ideologue who is beyond petty partisan politics… as an agent of hope and change who inspires people with idealistic words and positive feelings?

Tell me – how could you stop it from happening?

What happens right now to people who voice criticism of the president and his policies? (And let us be fair – criticism of Congress. Because this is not just about President Obama. Before President Obama took office we had Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.)

What happens to financial organizations that say “no we do not want government interference and control – please take back this TARP money”?

What happens to secured creditors who say “no as a matter of fact we do not think it is fair that we should lose 70% of our investment in order to save that automobile manufacturer and put the unions in charge”?

Okay. Those of us who think President Obama so far is the worst president we have ever seen – we have the elections of 2010 and the presidential election of 2012. No seriously. We do. Although one wonders what steps will be taken between now and then to make it certain or at least much more likely that the Congress and the Presidency remain in the hands of the Democratic party. And one wonders how possible it will be to reverse bad policies and repair the damage.

What would it look like if someone wanted to radically transform a nation? And how could people stop it once they realized what was happening?

Posted in History, News, Politics | No Comments »

REVIEW – "Star Trek"

Friday, May 8th, 2009

Wow.

Personally I thought it was fantastic – primarily in terms of “when you sat there watching it did you enjoy it?” Exciting. Touching at times. (Got choked up in a couple spots – I refuse to show tears in front of my wife. If I can help it.) And unexpectedly funny – laughed all over the place.

Kirk well done. Spock very well done. McCoy perhaps my favorite. Pike well done.

Later I will add some not-quite-profound reflections. Let me shift to a few criticisms.

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! AWOOGA! AWOOGA!

(more…)

Posted in Movies and film, Science Fiction | No Comments »

Easy to avoid hypocrisy when you have no standards (or) We have to be perfect but they do not

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

{ANYONE GOT A COOL/APPROPRIATE PICTURE?}

I believe in getting good grades. Students should aim for straight A’s.

I did not always get A’s in school.

Does that make me a hypocrite?

I believe in being kind patient and generous. Husbands should love their wives. Dads should love their kids.

I am not always a very good husband or father.

Does that constitute hypocrisy?

I find it fascinating how popular culture works. Take the case of Carrie Prejean aka Miss California. She has the temerity when asked about same-sex marriage to say she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. (You can disagree with that. Because this is not about same-sex marriage yea or nay.)

It appears there now is an ongoing campaign to destroy her publicly. Breast implants. Posed semi-nude for a lingerie advertisement when she was 17. Supporting the National Organization for Marriage. All(?) of which may violate a contract she signed. Not only did she lose the Miss USA competition because of her answer (according to the person who asked the question – whose name I will not type) but she may lose her status as Miss California as well.

One is curious about the other 49 woman in the Miss USA competition. Whether any of them ever violated any of the terms of their contracts. If there are similar efforts to investigate and expose them as well.

The conclusion we are being asked to draw of course is that Carrie Prejean aka Miss California is a hypocrite. She claims to be a Christian with high moral standards. But breast implants semi-nude pictures and contract violations. She says one thing but does another. She is a hypocrite.

I do not defend her alleged or non-alleged actions. Here is the point. She advocates high standards. And apparently does not live up to them perfectly. She is a hypocrite. And can be humiliated and destroyed publicly on that basis.

Of course – it is much easier if you have low or no standards to begin with. If you do not give a flip about… well… almost anything… Marriage? Whatever. Posing nude or semi-nude? Who cares. Cosmetic surgery? If you can afford it. No one can accuse you of hypocrisy if you have no standards.

I think students should aim for straight A’s. I did not always get A’s. Therefore I am a hypocrite. At the very least a failure.

He thinks students should be satisfied with whatever grades they get. He does not get straight A’s. Therefore he is not a hypocrite.

And how about Bristol Palin daughter of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska? When during the 2008 presidential election season Bristol Palin became pregnant by her boyfriend to whom she was not married – what was the cry from popular culture and mainstream media?

Sarah Palin advocates abstinence before marriage. Her daughter did not practice abstinence. Therefore Sarah Palin is maybe not a hypocrite as such but at the very least some sort of failure. She advocates standards which members of her own family do not maintain or least not perfectly.

Now Bristol Palin is making the circuit advocating abstinence for teenagers. Interviewers ask her pointedly “how can you of all people promote abstinence when you did not practice it yourself?”

(I suppose we could ask that of someone who advocates drug-free living who once struggled with drug addiction. “How can you of all people promote staying away from drugs when you did not do that yourself?”)

Bristol Palin advocates a standard that once she failed to maintain. Does that invalidate the standard? Does that make her a hypocrite?

Of course – it would be much easier if… Sexual relations before/outside marriage? Go for it. Addiction to drugs or alcohol? If it floats your boat. Racism? Yeah sur- … hey wait a minute! No one can accuse you of moral failure if you have no moral standards to begin with.

So the left (via popular culture and mainsteam media) can demonize castigate ridicule criticize people like Carrie Prejean and Bristol Palin (and by extension her mother Governor Sarah Palin – of whom I am not necessarily a fan) and not worry about the same thing being done to them. They have motes in their eyes! They have no legitimacy!

Meanwhile these moral(?) watchdogs on the left either have no beams in their eyes or hey if you want beams in your eyes that is just fine who cares nothing wrong with beams!

At this point some will accuse me (or other critics of the left and/or of popular culture and mainstream media) of whining. Aw… poor wittle Christians… conservatives… Wepubwicans… can’t take cwiticism or exposure of theiw hypocwisy.

Fair enough. Seriously.

Because on the one hand we can and should push back with two simple points:

  1. Just because someone fails to live up to the standards they advocate does not constitute hypocrisy or render invalid those moral standards. (Do we make theft legal because there are thieves?)
  2. It is easy to avoid being accused or moral failure or hypocrisy when you have low or no standards to begin with.

But on the other hand we have to be honest with ourselves.

We have to be perfect. We cannot afford any mistakes or moral failures or even the appearance of hypocrisy. We cannot give the opposition any ammunition – real or imagined – whatsoever.

So people like Governor Palin cannot afford any mistakes or failures. When she talks about that “bridge to nowhere” she must get 100% straight her story. There cannot be any lingering questions about whether she improperly pushed for a former brother-in-law to be fired. And so on. (Yes I know it is too late for this. And no I am not endorsing or defending Governor Palin. I am trying to establish the point – “we” have to be perfect.)

Carrie Prejean cannot afford to have any nude or semi-nude pictures anywhere at any time. She cannot afford to break or even maybe sort of stretch any of the terms of her contract. (Too late perhaps. I know. Just trying to establish the point.)

Republicans – and this time I am sort of endorsing them – cannot afford any mistakes or failures whatsoever. All their facts must be straight. There cannot be any violations of ethics rules whatsoever. There cannot be any affairs or bribes or prostitutes or sexual harrassment or propositioning of interns or porky earmarks or anything of the sort.

“We” – whoever we happen to be – have to be perfect. True the “other side” – whoever they happen to be – do not have to be. They can do whatever they want and not be accused or hypocrisy or moral failure. But “we” do not have that luxury(?).

We have to be perfect.

UPDATE (May 08, 2009): Apparently Greg Gutfield has written a piece at Big Hollywood (today) that makes almost exactly the same point. Did he read my article? Or are we just on the same wavelength – because similar forces produce similar results?

Posted in Issues, Media, Rhetoric, Society and Culture | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries