“They are striking against power”

Posted on August 5, 2010 by admin

If I were to list my 10 favorite books there would be one science-fiction novel on that list:

The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin.

It tells the story of Shevek who is a physicist on Anarres which is a nonauthoritarian communist society. Theoretically no government. No money. And no laws as such. Shevek travels to the homeworld Urras of which Anarres is a moon to complete his work on a general unified field theory of time. At first a pampered honored guest of the A-Io government he escapes his hosts in order to support a general strike. The government uses military force against the strikers. Shevek manages to escape and survive and eventually seek asylum at the Terran embassy.

The ambassador from Terra says to Shevek:

Perhaps Anarres is the key to Urras… The revolutionists in Nio, they come from that same tradition. They weren’t just striking for better wages or protesting the draft. They are not only socialists, they are anarchists; they were striking against power. You see, the size of the demonstration, the intensity of popular feeling, and the government’s pani reaction, all seemed very hard to understand. Why the commotion? The government here is not despotic. The rich are very rich indeed, but the poor are not so very poor. They are neither enslaved nor starving. Why aren’t they satisfied with bread and speeches? Why are they supersensitive? … Now I begin to see why.

Yes I know. Another political post.

Posted in Literature, Science Fiction | Leave a comment

Meanwhile in Kenya (or) As America so Kenya?

Posted on August 5, 2010 by admin

(Yes I know this website is supposed to get away from politics. But this is huge. And deserves more attention that it will receive in the American media.)

Or is it the other way around? As Kenya so America?

Most Americans may not be aware of what happened yesterday in Kenya or its significance. By a 2-to-1 margin Kenyans decisively approved a new constitution. The new constitution represents a political – and possibly social – transformation of the East African republic. Is this a positive change? And what are the implications for the United States?

For the last few weeks I have been discussing this issue with a fine Christian brother who is active in my small congregation – a doctoral student from Kenya who follows political issues closely. He/we are astonished at how this new constitution has come to pass. And deeply concerned over what it represents.

Let me begin with some of the concerns insofar as I understand them.

Kenya has had Muslim family courts for a long time. Just as Kenya also has tribal courts. Fair enough. But the new constitution specifically recognizes the Muslim kadhi courts. There is a sense in which sharia has been enshrined in the new constitution. Kenya is ninety percent Christian and only ten percent Muslim. Certainly there is no objection to religious freedom for Muslims. Nor even to Muslim family courts as such. But for Islam (or more precisely sharia?) to be uniquely recognized and empowered by the new constitution is deeply troubling.

Abortion. There is a clause in the new constitution that many argue legalizes abortion. Something that many Christian and certainly Muslim Kenyans oppose.

The land commission. The new constitution establishes a land commission that can redistribute land that it finds has been acquired illegally. On the face of it this sounds like a good thing right? And perhaps it is. But it could be turned into a mechanism for grabbing and redistributing land in a kind of political spoils system. Has anyone heard of Zimbabwe?

Regionalism. If I understand it correctly the new constitution represents a huge shift of political power from the central government to a new(?) system of counties. Normally I would appreciate this sort of change because of my belief in federalism and decentralized government. But the concern is that this may balkanize Kenya into regions that have strong tribal and/or religious identities. “If you belong to such-and-such tribe you should not live here. You should move to that region over there”. (And to a certain extent this is what we saw happen in the aftermath of the 2007 election.) “If you are Christian you do not belong in this country unless you want to live under sharia“.

It is troubling that only a simple majority was needed to approve this new constitution. A radical transformation of the political structure of Kenya and all you need is 50.1%? Think about what is takes just to amend the United States Constitution. Significant changes require the support of a significant majority.

Put two of these concerns together and what you may have is Kenya becoming increasingly divided along tribal and religious lines.

I should note that this is one perspective. There may be many positive changes in the new constitution. And there are some - such as this AllAfrica writer – who would argue that the above concerns are invalid.

So why given these concerns did seventy percent of Kenyans – which mitigates the concern over the need for a simple majority – vote Yes?

The new constitution is in part a reaction to the violence of 2007. “If we have this new constitution that sort of thing will not happen again”. It may be that for many Kenyans the desire for change was stronger than their concern over particular problems with the draft constitution. Does that sound familiar?

(The above argument is dangerous because it resembles the dismissive “the people don’t know what they’re doing” rhetoric we also hear from the social-cultural-political elite in the United States.)

Another key argument by those in the Yes camp was that sure the draft constitution has problems. But let us pass it because of all the positive changes it will bring. And then we can revise and amend it later. Does that also sound familiar? “We need to pass this so we will know what’s in it”.

We must also note American involvement in this process. The Obama administration – through Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton and Ambassador Ranneberger – has taken an active role in encouraging if not pressuring Kenya to adopt the new constitution.

It probably did not help the No movement that former president Moi spoke against the new constitution.

Is this simply reform? Or is this a quiet revolution? In which in the name of reform Kenyan society and politics have been fundamentally changed? Dare we ask who stands to benefit?

And is this what is happening in America? A quiet revolution? Dare we ask who stands to benefit from all the hundreds of billions of dollars spent and thousands of pages of legislation passed during the last eighteen months? And whether future generations will be able to undo whatever damage has been done to our society?

U.S. Envoy Tells Public to Decide Nation’s Fate

Posted in Islam, Issues, News, Politics, Society and Culture | 1 Comment

Will young Americans truly turn toward liberal Christianity?

Posted on August 2, 2010 by admin

(ed – I almost did not publish this. Do not like to “pick an argument” with such a public figure and that is not my intent.)

Normally I do not pay much attention to what American religion scholar Diana Butler Bass writes. That is not a dig. She writes prolifically on issues not normally of interest to me.

She maintains an active blog at Beliefnet.com titled “Christianity for the Rest of Us”. It appeared on my mental radar screen because of a post a few weeks ago by Midwest Conservative Journal in which she criticizes strongly the Archbishop of Canterbury because he asked Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church to carry but not wear her mitre when she visited Southwark Cathedral. Among other things she writes:

In case the Church of England hasn’t noticed, this is why people are rejecting Christianity. It isn’t because some Christians chose women to lead their churches, ask questions about traditional renderings of theology and the Bible, doubt God’s existence, or want their gay and lesbian friends and relatives to be part of their church communities. Canterbury, please know that western people are rejecting Christianity because–as noted in a recent survey of young Americans–Christians are “out of touch with reality.”

Try to follow her reasoning here and in the rest of her post. Christianity is in decline in the West. Why? Because – and this is my characterization of her argument – Christianity in the West is more concerned with theology and practice than with a host of other issues.

She returns to this theme in her recent post concerning Anne Rice announcing her departure from Christianity but not Christ:

Second, Ms. Rice is rejecting Christianity because it is illiberal. For almost four decades, the standard narrative is that Christianity in the West is dying because it is too liberal, not conservative enough, not theologically or ethically demanding. Rice’s comment moves in the exact opposite direction. She’s rejecting the toxic admixture of conservative ideology and Jesus-faith. She has been aching for a faith that is open–and not “anti-” everything; a faith that demonstrates the love, kindness, and mercy of its founder, not the “quarrelsome” disputations of Jesus’ all-too-human followers. If Anne Rice is any indication, Americans are hankering for a new sort of liberal faith the actually resembles that which Jesus taught and embodied.

There is quite a problem here for churches. Conservative churches will, as they have been for several years now, continue to decline as their message of exclusion fails to address the most pointed questions of the day. However, the traditionally liberal churches can’t really grow because they are too caught up in “quarrelsome” disputations of the very issues that seekers like Ms. Rice want to move past.

This confirms my interpretation of her comments regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury versus(?) the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

  • Christianity in the West is in decline.
  • It is in decline because it is too conservative.
  • Young Americans are looking for Christianity that is liberal.
  • But liberal churches are not growing because they are still mired in ongoing quarrels with conservative Christians.

Granted this is a highly simplified presentation of the main points of her argument(?). We can elaborate on what Bass means by “conservative” and “liberal”.

My intent is not to trash talk or pick a fight with someone who is surely a better scholar than I will ever be. Nor especially to argue with her concerning the sociological issues. So much as to address some of the issues and the points she raises.

Decline(?)

Diana Butler Bass appears to argue that Christianity in the West is in decline because it is too conservative. But churches/denominations and congregations showing numerical growth generally are more conservative in their theology and practice. And traditionally liberal churches/denominations are losing members. That she can provide examples of thriving congregations that are center-to-left does not disprove the general pattern. And the single example of a famous mystery novelist is hardly enough evidence for Bass to generalize that Christianity in the West is in decline because it is not liberal enough.

Bass seems to argue that liberal churches/denominations cannot grow because they are still caught up in conflicts over theology and practice. Are we seriously being asked to believe there are no liberal churches/denominations that are mostly or completely past these disputations? At exactly what point should we be able to expect young Americans to begin coming (back?) in droves to liberal churches/denominations? If young Americans reject Christianity because Christians are “out of touch with reality” – too conservative that is – is there any evidence they are attracted to more liberal Christianity? Or will there always be some excuse/explanation for why liberal churches/denominations generally are more in decline than conservative churches/denominations?

So what?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that (1) young Americans and Europeans reject Christianity because it is too conservative and even that (2) they would be drawn in large numbers to Christianity if it reforms and becomes liberal. (By “conservative” and “liberal” I mean what Diana Butler Bass appears to mean by these terms.)

Why should the Christian church reform itself in order to meet the values and expectations of modern Western society? Did the Christian church reform itself to meet the values and expectations of Greek and Roman society? It may be that the received Christian faith that young Americans and Europeans reject is precisely what they need and to their own surprise may at times discover they want. The “we need to change in order to become more attractive to society” argument is not compelling.

Truth?

This in turn raises the question of Truth. What if Diana Butler Bass is asking Christianity to abandon Truth – however one understands that – in order to satisfy those who do not know or want it? In her defense however when she writes “Americans are hankering for a new sort of liberal faith the [sic] actually resembles that which Jesus taught and embodied” we can surmise Bass would argue that liberal Christianity – as she understands it – is in fact the Truth which conservative Christian churches/denominations have abandoned.

Good. Because then we can have an honest debate/discussion. About what Jesus taught and embodied. About the nature of the Christian faith. And about the purpose of the Christian gospel.

In case the Church of England hasn’t noticed, this is why people are rejecting Christianity. It isn’t because some Christians chose women to lead their churches, ask questions about traditional renderings of theology and the Bible, doubt God’s existence, or want their gay and lesbian friends and relatives to be part of their church communities. Canterbury, please know that western people are rejecting Christianity because–as noted in a recent survey of young Americans–Christians are “out of touch with reality.”
Posted in Christian Practice, Christianity, Issues, Logic and Reason, Religion, Roman Catholicism, Society and Culture | 4 Comments

SERMON – “Slowly and Immediately” (Genesis 18)

Posted on July 30, 2010 by admin

“Slowly and Immediately”
Richard M. Wright
Genesis 18
8th Sunday of Pentecost (C)
Church of the Nations

"Abraham and the Three Visitors" by Marc Chagall

Three sisters garden.

Clark Carlton is a professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University. In his podcast last month he takes a break(?) from talking about the relationship between Christianity and philosophy to talk about his garden. His three sisters garden.

Squash. Beans. Corn.

Native Americans understand that these three crops grow well together. One takes nitrogen from the soil. Another gives it. The beans climb the corn. The squash leaves shade the soil help keep water in the soil and help keep stop weeds from growing.

He makes three main points. No matter what – there will always be weeds. It is better to work with nature – three sisters – than against nature. And finally a garden takes time. Weeds. With nature. And time.

In our Bible reading for this morning from the book of Genesis chapter eighteen not three sisters but three men(?) come to visit Abraham while he is sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. When he sees them he hurries from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bows low to the ground.

I love this story because it reminds me so much of Church of the Nations. Watch what Abraham does.

If I have found favor in your eyes my lord (or sir) do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought and then you can all wash your feet and rest. Let me get you something to eat and then go on your way.

They say, Okay. Sounds good.

Abraham practices hospitality to the stranger. People he does not know who they are where they come from where they are going. Maybe they look different. Talk different. Have different passports. But he welcomes them and invites them to come into his home to rest and eat and drink. Every time I visit the home of an international in Church of the Nations – please! Sit down! Have something to drink. Have something to eat.

So Abraham hurries into the tent to get Sarah his wife. Quick. Make some tea. Cut up a watermelon. And start making noodles.

Now Abraham does not make his wife do all the work. He also gets some meat and something to drink and puts all of this in front of his guests. While they eat he stands near them under a tree. Now the conversation starts.

Where’s your wife Sarah? (Excuse me. Who?)

There in the tent. She’s making lunch for you guys.

Pause for a moment. Who are these people?

Abraham and Sarah are the first internationals in the Bible. They are the first people in the Bible who leave their home country to travel to a new place that God will show them. In the book of Genesis chapter twelve God gives Abraham a great promise that shapes the story of the entire Bible.

I will make you a great nation. I will bless you. I will make your name great. You will be a blessing. Through you all the peoples of the earth will be blessed.

God wants to show himself to the entire world. Have a relationship with all the peoples of the world. Continue to heal the world that is broken because of sin. That is his purpose. But he chooses to do this through one family that leaves their home country.

There are two big problems with this plan. Abraham and his wife have no children. And they are retirement age. In this story about eighty five and seventy five. Keep that in mind when the story continues.

When the Lord says, I will be back about this time next year and Sarah your wife will have a son.

Are you kidding me? What God has promised. What I have wanted to happen. And what I have been waiting to happen for ten years. Finally it is going to happen? No way.

The first thing for us to hear is this. It will happen. What God wants to do with us through us in us will happen. We might think it is impossible. We might think it is too late. Sarah laughs when she hears this. But it will happen.

Think of all the things that we want to see God do with us through us and in us – that we think cannot happen. Will I ever finish my article? My dissertation? Will I ever finish school? Will I ever have enough money to buy that car or that house? Will my children ever grow up? Will I ever experience joy again? Will I ever heal from that bad experience?  Lose that bad habit? Ever speak and write English well? Ever play the piano well? Lose weight? Be physically fit? Write a book? Find a job? Start my own business?

Will I ever be good? Holy? Spiritually mature? Will I ever be the person I want to be? That God wants us to be? Will our church grow and thrive? Will Church of the Nations meet and welcome and befriend new internationals? From even more nations and cultures?

God says to Abraham and Sarah Is anything too hard for the Lord? I’ll come back about this time next year and it will happen. You will see it.

The reason I begin with the story of Clark Carlton and his garden is because while I read and think and pray about this story I think about this time next year. It will happen. But it also takes time.

God does not say Sarah will have a baby – right now! No – it takes nine months. You cannot force your garden to grow faster. It takes time. What we want to see happen and what God wants to do in our lives takes time. Sometimes more and sometimes less. But it always takes time.

There is a tension in the Christian faith. On the one hand we talk about becoming a follower of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Born again. Eternal life. Sins forgiven. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. As Paul writes we are a new creation! Transferred from the dominion of evil to the kingdom of light. There is something new and immediate change.

On the other hand spiritual growth takes time. We need to be patient with ourselves. And be careful about trying shortcuts or strange ways to become good and holy and like Jesus. We need to work with nature not against it.

And part of this time is the slow constant discipline of repentance. Of turning back to God every day. Each day pull out the weeds of sin – and there will always always be weeds. A little prayer a little Bible each day. A little Bible study and worship each week. It is immediate. And it happens slowly. But if we are consistent and disciplined it will happen. Because nothing is too hard for God.

Posted in Hebrew Bible, Internationals, Prayer, Sermons | 1 Comment

Lord deliver us from politics (or) Trusting God when things fall apart

Posted on July 28, 2010 by admin

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
– W. B. Yeats

"White Crucifixion" by Marc Chagall

“Depressing”.

I have been seeing and hearing that word more frequently in reference to our current social-cultural-political condition. The other day was driving back to the church office after attempting to visit a woman whose husband had fallen asleep in the Lord the day before. Thinking about what is going on in the world but especially in our nation. And seriously wondering “is this what the beginning of the end looks like?”

How many could imagine 10 years ago that this is where we would be now?

Previous posts have expressed concern about expressing political opinions on this website. There is nothing inherently wrong with Christian citizens expressing their views on social-cultural-political issues. There are some who do it very well. From January 2009:

I am supposed to be a pastor. I do not equate the Christian faith with political conservatism or the Republican party. What of the things of God that transcend our current historical and political circumstances?

Which is a dangerous and possibly a deeply flawed question. Perhaps better to ask, What does God call us to do and who does God call us to be in and during such circumstances? (link added)

Yes I am an American citizen. Who is deeply troubled by what is happening around us. I am concerned on behalf of my family – in what kind of America will my children live? – on behalf of my fellow citizens and even on behalf of the people of the other nations of the world.

One might legitimately ask “what does this have to do with the Christian life? and the mission of the Christian church?” Let me put it to you this way dear readers. How much more difficult will it become during the next few decades to proclaim the teachings of the Christian faith? to practice the Christian life? to engage in Christian mission?

Let me be more specific.

Start with money and budgets.

Severe economic recession means less people work or people work less and/or people have less on which to live. Which also means they are less able to contribute to the ministry and mission of the Christian church. I am concerned about how the moratorium on offshore drilling will affect Louisiana as a whole and University Baptist Church in particular.

I hesitate to attempt to list some of what I see happening to our nation:

  • Our nation is becoming increasingly divided and polarized along several different lines.
  • Racial relations are arguably the worst they have been in 20-30 years.
  • We have trillion-plus dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
  • We have an increasingly unsustainable national debt that will weigh down our economy for decades.
  • We have the highest unemployment levels in decades.
  • We have a national government that has effectively taken over huge portions of the American economy.
  • Let us be specific. (1) Healthcare (2) Finance and banking (3) Energy. There may be others.
  • We have a national government that in attempting to address a genuine problem makes it far worse.
  • We have a national government that is attempting to take primary control of secondary education.
  • We have a national government that makes it increasingly difficult for small businesses to succeed.
  • We have a national government that to a large extent chooses winners and losers in the economy.
  • We have a national government that increasingly rewards failure and punishes success.
  • We have a national government that increasingly transfers wealth from those who invest and produce to those who do not.
  • We have a national government that does not follow its own rules and procedures.
  • We have a national government that tells the American people one thing but practices another.
  • We have an administration that increasingly exercises power outside the limits set by the Constitution.
  • We have an administration that attempts to marginalize political dissent.
  • We have a national government that does not demonstrate basic reverence. That right there might be the most serious problem that gives rise to most of the others.
  • We have an administration that alienates our friends and allies and attempts to placate nations traditionally hostile to the United States.
  • We have an administration that appears unwilling to understand and confront terrorism motivated by radical Islam.
  • We have an administration that uses genuine crises as bargaining chips for making changes in domestic policy.
  • We have an administration that is openly hostile toward states that are attempting to protect the well being of their own people.
  • We have a president who consistently misrepresents principled disagreements with his policies.
  • We have a president who attacks those who disagree with him precisely when they for reasons of propriety are unable to respond.
  • We have a Mainstream Media that subordinates journalism to political activism.
  • We have a Mainstream Media that keeps some news from the American people and distorts what news it does report.
  • What have an entertainment industry that is openly hostile toward most Americans and the values they hold.
  • We have a large percentage of the African-American community suffering the destructive effects of policies promulgated by the very people they support with their votes.

And so on and so on and so on. (Ed – I will work on providing links for many of the points listed above.)

But there are two thoughts that occur to me.

First – why do I have to be the person who keeps up with and writes about these issues? I should trust others to do this. And trust that what they write will not go unread. As a Christian pastor I may read about care about and have strong opinions about these issues. But they are not my primary responsibility. Do I have a “right” to write about social-cultural-political issues? Yes. But I need to trust that other people will do that.

With one qualification. I will keep the links and newsfeeds. Even expand them.  Precisely so that the important things other people write are more likely to be noticed read and cited.

Second – no matter how much “things fall apart” around us do we trust God? Do we trust that God will guide? protect? provide for us during such times? The vast majority of the people of God for the vast majority of human history have had to live in and through far worse. The argument can be made that it is during the worst times that the Christian church shines brightest.

So as difficult as it is – and I ask for your prayers and support and encouragement in this – I will attempt to shift the focus on this website back to what it was originally meant to be.

  • Christian theology and practice. Which means many different kinds of things including sermons and Bible studies and reflections.
  • Fun and personal stuff. Which means many different kinds of things including book and movie reviews as well as posts about music and literature which are areas of interest.

I was planning on neatly contradicting myself with a few “parting shots”. A few points I wanted to make before – by the grace of God – getting away from social-cultural-political commentary. About Journolist. About how “our” side is not allowed to make any mistakes at all while the “other” side never holds itself accountable for a plethora of failures. About Andrew Breitbart. About the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle. About who truly is primarily responsible for the sudden rapid disintegration of race relations. About President Obama as a Marxist-Leninist.

But I will trust God by trusting him to inspire others to address these points.

Posted in Announcement, Christian Practice, Economics, Ethnicity and race, Issues, Louisiana, Personal, Politics, Society and Culture | 5 Comments

Meanwhile we miss the *real* story about the government versus the Gulf Coast

Posted on July 23, 2010 by admin

Opinionated Catholic asks why leftists and liberals aka “liberals” and “conservatives” are so obsessed with the complex of stories revolving around NAACP/Tea Party/Fox News/Shirley Sherrod/Obama administration. When there are far more important issues at hand.

How much will these stories affect the average American personally? With respect to Opinionated Catholic they do affect us if indirectly. Political culture -> elections and policy.

But quite rightly he urges us to pay more attention to the Obama administration ban on offshore drilling. How it will destroy up to 100,000 jobs in Louisiana. And adversely effect national security. As well as the national economy. Two days ago there was a rally in Lafayette which 11,000 people attended. Governor Jindal says it powerfully and without notes or a teleprompter.

Which leads to a couple other thoughts.

In the car talking with my wife. She asked “If we lived in some other part of the country would we feel differently?” I said yes. I would probably think “Sorry Louisiana we care about your jobs and economy and all but you need to make this sacrifice for the greater good. You can always move to another state and/or get another job”. I would not understand.

But here is the other thing. How much is this not how the federal government works? We praise our representatives when they bring home the bacon. When they speak up and intervene on behalf of our interests. Which by the way raises questions about Senator Mary Landrieu.

How often do politicians in both major parties go the extra mile to save some jobs or some way of life in some other part of the country and yes at the expense of the common good? Let us be more specific. How much has the Obama administration done to help save(?) jobs in California? Michigan? and so on? States that are in such bad economic shape largely because of years of bad policies?

How much has the Obama administration done to help save jobs in certain select businesses? especially large corporations? Corporations that are in such bad shape largely because of years of bad decisions?

Do people see the inconsistency here? Oh those poor teachers and government workers in California. Take billions of dollars of taxpayer money and send it to them in the form of “economic stimulus”. Oh those poor  workers in automobile manufacturing companies. Take billions of dollars of taxpayer money and bail them out. Let me tell you about the millions of jobs that were saved or created! Let me boast about the “economic stimulus” with specific examples of a few hundred or a few thousand jobs here and there!

But when it comes to the Gulf Coast. When it comes to Louisiana.

By indifference inaction and active obstruction the Obama administration helped turn an environmental crisis into wholesale environmental catastrophe. Which in turn devastates a regional economy still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.

And then not only doing nothing to help protect the environment and save jobs also doing something to destroy jobs in Louisiana.

Poor California. Poor Michigan. Poor teachers.* Poor government workers. Poor car companies. Poor home owners. Poor this state. Poor that group. Have some legislation. Have some money. At the expense of the common good.

But Louisiana? Bleep you.

*(Disclose: my wife was a state employee and now a teacher. Our family benefits from the very policies that I criticize. Louisiana will have to face the same day of reckoning that other states are now facing.)

Posted in Economics, Environment, Louisiana, News, Politics | 3 Comments

What the furor over Shirley Sherrod reveals about *us* (or) Snow falling on cedars

Posted on July 21, 2010 by admin

(Ed – Edited and shortened original version of this post.)

I have not posted about (former) agricultural official Shirley Sherrod because frankly am mighty tired of talking about “race”. And boy are we talking about it a lot since 2008. Which is strange.

The significance of this story lies not with Ms Sherrod but with how everyone reacted. This is where it gets messy and ugly. Because everybody – excuse me almost everybody – looks bad. Prominent left wing organization looks bad. White House looks bad. Leftist aka “liberal” Mainstream media looks bad. Liberal aka “conservative” media look bad.

Ann Althouse as always finds the subtle truth that eludes everyone else including me:

To react like that [ed - see edited video and condemn Ms Sherrod as racist] is to display the same human weakness that underlies racism itself. You see one thing, you see the whole person as nothing but that one thing, you feel instinctive aversion and fear, and you reflexively push that person away. Blaming those who showed you that one thing does not absolve you from your responsibility to rise above the level of instinct and fear. It is up to you to go beyond your first perception, to search for the truth, and to use reason and judgment before you make a decision about someone.

The Anchoress has an exceptional post on this mess. May she forgive me for quoting her at length but I want everyone to read this:

This whole sordid mess of a story–which is clearly not over–may tell us that it is past time for people of good will to stop tolerating politically-expedient charges of racism [ed - link added], regardless of whether they originate from genuinely from overzealous, malicious bloggers or from Congressmen who are confident that any charge they make will be deemed insta-credible, or from journalists who ignore real racism while trying to ignite the charge elsewhere, for the advancement of their own partisan agendas, or from the rightly marginalized, fringe-living, stupid people who every sensible person condemns.

The NAACP’s maneuver last week was an attempt at cynical manipulation, a lazy card they thought they could play, because it’s always taken the pot, before. They ticked off Breitbart, who upped the ante, but appears to have done so recklessly.

Everyone’s credibility is now strained, and perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps the left should finally leave behind the smug instinct to sniff, “racism, straight up” over sincere disagreements on policy. If they can manage that, then perhaps the right can stop feeling so defensive.

There is absolutely nothing simple about the matter of race in America; there is a ways to go before content of character will finally overcome color of skin. But I am not sure if further progress toward a truly color-blind society can be made until the manufactured cry of “raaaaacism”–by people who know that their are merely fanning flames or manipulating movements–has finally been rejected by both the right and the left. Race-baiters must be made to understand that their cheap tactic will no longer bear weight among fair-minded people, who are horrified by genuine racism but tired of its weaponized unreasonable facsimile.

In a nation that has come far enough to see African-Americans hold its highest offices, and wield enormous power–power given to them by people of all races and backgrounds, who can and will take it back at their own pleasure–the overplayed charge of “racism” among the chatterers is not only toxic, it is self-revelatory: it betrays their own tawdry cynicism, and their own racial fixations. (emphasis in original)

Word.

She also provides a list of links. Check some of them out. Here are a couple extra:

During the last few years I have become more interested in reading and watching mysteries. Stay with me.

There is a theme one finds in nearly every mystery story. There is a crime. The main character(s) investigates the crime. And uncovers a host of sins and smaller crimes that are not always connected to the main crime.

Several years ago there was one of those excellent films that not many people watched. “Snow Falling on Cedars” based on the novel by David Guterson.

Set on the fictional San Piedro Island in the northern Puget Sound region of the state of Washington coast in 1951, the plot revolves around the murder case of Kazuo Miyamoto, a Japanese American accused of killing Carl Heine, a respected fisherman in the close-knit community. The trial occurs in the midst of deep anti-Japanese sentiments following World War II. Covering the case is the editor of the town’s one-man newspaper, Ishmael Chambers, a World War II veteran who lost an arm fighting the Japanese. Torn by a sense of hatred for the Japanese, Chambers struggles with his love for Kazuo’s wife, Hatsue, and his conscience, wondering if Kazuo is truly innocent.

Spearheading the prosecution are the town’s sheriff, Art Moran, and prosecutor, Alvin Hooks. Leading the defense is the old, experienced Nels Gudmundsson. An underlying theme throughout the trial is prejudice. Several witnesses, including Etta Heine, Carl’s mother, accuse Kazuo of murdering Carl for racial and personal reasons.

Snap judgment. Kazuo is guilty. Racial and personal reasons.

And yet during the trial we discover that those who accuse Kazuo themselves harbor prejudice. They did not support or defend their Japanese-American friends and neighbors when they were taken to internment camps. We also learn about a disputed parcel of land which the Miyamoto family was going(?) to purchase from the Heine family. To simplify a complicated story the Heine family kept most of the money paid for the land but sold it to another family. That must be why Kazuo murdered Carl.

Here is the point. Those who accuse Kazuo reveal their own prejudice and cynicism. In the same way how we judge(d) Shirley Sherrod reveals much about ourselves.

Can you believe the nerve of that woman who washes the feet of Christ with her tears and dries them with her hair?!?

Lord have mercy on me.

Posted in Ethnicity and race, Media, Movies and film, News, Politics | 2 Comments

Well said and thank you Congressman Frank

Posted on July 20, 2010 by admin

I am not a fan of Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts. And it has nothing to do with whether he is gay. I will vote for a conservative aka true liberal who is gay over a leftist aka “liberal” who is straight any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I was genuinely impressed by how he stood up for Senator Scott Brown when Kathy Griffin called Senator Brown’s daughters “prostitutes”. He sent a letter to Griffin. Here is the money paragraph from The Hill:

“I think it’s possible to have fun, and even to poke fun at people in my businesses, without this kind of completely unfair attack,” the letter continues. “And while I don’t usually feel compelled to comment on what various entertainers do, since you did include me in that show I wanted to make it very clear that I thought what you did was wholly unfair and inappropriate. It’s the kind of thing that makes it less likely that I or others can cooperate with you in the future.”

I like how he says “don’t usually feel compelled to comment on what various entertainers do”. One of the things that troubles me about modern American society is (a) how much attention entertainers receive and (b) how much people feel free to comment on anything and everything including matters with which they are not familiar.

Add (a) to (b) and you get entertainers trash talking political figures while promoting their latest film/show/album.

I also like how Congressman Frank phrased that last sentence “less likely that I or others can cooperate with you in the future”. To what extent is this how “middle Americans” need to deal with our cultural and political elite?

Here is the other things. You know how true liberals aka “conservatives” often complain when the left will not police its own rhetoric and behavior? Well here we go.

Very well said Congressman. And thank you.

Posted in Entertainment, News, Politics | Leave a comment

Conspiracy not group think (or) Journolist and news media bias

Posted on July 20, 2010 by admin

This is huge. If it turns out to be legit.

I sort of followed the whole David Weigel on Journolist brouhaha that led to his being let go by the Washington Post. But leftist bias in the news media is old and tired and overwhelming. I want to enjoy life. Not read Newsbusters and be angry all the time.

Since undergraduate days have been an observer of the press aka the news media. In those days it was print and television and radio. About half the articles I wrote for the Cornell Review “the conservative voice on campus” were about the news media.

Okay so the news media is predominantly leftist aka “liberal”. We already know that. But why? And do they know that? For a long time assumed it was as simple as group think.

  1. Most journalists (of whichever media) happen to lean left in their social-political views.
  2. This colors their reporting. What they cover. How they cover. Questions they ask. Language they use.
  3. These journalists with their left wing bias encourage and reinforce each other. Group think. Not conspiracy.

And that was just the way it was. Pervasive. Irritating. Annoying. But what could we do about it?

Two words: Internet. 2008.

The Internet alone has greatly challenged the monopoly of the “Mainstream Media”. We can get other news. From other sources. That is covered differently.

But in my opinion 2008 was the watershed year. The presidential election.

That is the year when the Mainstream Media took off the mask and chose sides. The left wing bias was no longer subtle. It was no longer “okay so most of us journalists lean to the left but we are still professionals and care about covering the news in a fair balanced manner”. And we could no longer say “well at least we are still getting the news we just have to filter out some of the bias”.  In many ways we were just not getting the news at all. And what news we got was so slanted it could no longer be filtered – it had been fundamentally transformed into something else.

In a way I felt like the news media had chosen sides in a soft civil war – against “middle America”. Against those of us who still believe in a federal republic based on and governed by the Constitution. Against those of us who believe in liberty opportunity responsibility and security.

For about ten years I got most of my news from National Public Radio. Was it biased? Yeah. But it was still thorough coverage of the issues. I could “filter” it.

I seldom listen any more.

(One could also mention cable.)

Enough background. Back to the news.

The Journolist is a listserv in which several hundred journalists (along with some professors and activists) participated. There are many such listservs for just about every group concerning just about every area of interest. I know of listservs for Hebrew language and Jewish studies. There is one for the Chinese Students and Scholars Association at Louisiana State University.

Sometimes these listservs are considered private. Sort of like email. It is considered a breach of confidentiality or at least of propriety to share the content of these conservations with people outside the group. In my opinion such groups are entitled to set their own rules. Public or private.

Journolist was very private. And like Climategate the problem is not a private listserv. The problem is what people were saying and doing under cover of that privacy.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

Read the whole thing at The Daily Caller.

It appears that journalists actively worked behind the scenes to effect coverage of the presidential campaign. In Barack’s Obama favor.

A few caveats. And they are important.

  1. Who is The Daily Caller? Does s/he really have these Journolist archives? Frankly “according to records obtained by The Daily Caller” does not inspire my confidence. Who else has seen these? Is there a way to confirm they are authentic?
  2. Just because a bunch of journalists on a private listserv say “we are going to do something about this” (attack journalists who in any way even remotely make Barack Obama look bad) does not mean it happened. People say “we should do something about this” all the time. What did these journalists actually do as a result of these conversations?
  3. What about context? Many of the journalists cited are with The Nation which is hardly mainstream. Oh wait. It is.

I think the true significance of the Journolist archives might not lie in what these journalists achieved – would the Republicans still have lost? would Hillary Clinton have been the Democratic nominee? – but in how it exposes the mindset of many journalists.

Ann Althouse (whose blog is read by millions as opposed to my hundreds) has two great posts on this.

In one she ridicules the plight of feminists who had to “wave aside as politically irrelevant” the very anti-feminist personal behavior of one William Jefferson Clinton:

Ah! How Katha suffered for Bill Clinton! She would prefer to have a more pleasurable life, full of the fun of being true to the principles of the feminist movement, but there were more important things to be done at the time. Caring about rape, sexual harassment, male privilege, and female subordination — that was a self-indulgence brave Katha [Pollitt of The Nation] rose above.

Heh. Yet this is not unrelated to another issue which is the astonishing lack of ethical considerations:

But in The Daily Caller quotes, they only ask what will work best. They don’t even throw in as a makeweight argument that it would be more ethical to refrain from calling their opponents racists.

Another distinction is that Alinsky was talking about rules for political activists, not journalists. Even as means are subordinated to ends, journalism is subordinated to political activism. (emphasis added)

That last clause is the money quote. It is why I believe 2008 was the critical turning point for the relationship between the news media and the American people. Before 2008 I think there was always political activism but it was often subordinated (if barely) to journalism. 2008 is the year in which that relationship flipped. Journalism began to serve the ends of political activism.

Posted in Media, News, Politics, Propaganda, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Visit the online porch of “Positive Infinity”

Posted on July 19, 2010 by admin

Had a comment on the post about the article by Ross Douthat which turned out to be a trackback from Positive Infinity. Website with thoughtful and interesting posts from someone with an interesting story. Been there many times over the last couple years. A fellow non-Anglican (formerly Anglican) who follows Anglicanism. So stop by say “hi” and give some love to Positive Infinity.

Posted in Anglicanism, Fun and Geek Stuff | Leave a comment