The Bosque Boys

For some reason, the music in my head this evening is from the early 70s--specifically some of the groups that tried to put jazz and rock together: Chicago, Blood, Sweat, and Tears, and Chase. The last group is not well known, turning out three albums. For a year or so in high school, I got the juices flowing with a shot of Chase in the morning, cranked up.

From Youtube, a cut from their first album. For those of you too young to remember, the thing you are seeing in the video is called a turntable and the round piece of vinyl going round and round was called an album.

My favorite album is the second, Ennea, because of side two, a retelling of Greek mythology of the gods.

The Wikipedia entry on Bill Chase, the group's leader, and the band. A great bio from Trumpetgig that includes some great clips. (Does anyone but me, think captions for the last two clips are switched?)

This evening I listened for a while to a radio interview with the author of a new book on the experience of people who survive disasters. She termed the psychological reaction "shock," and stated that it included a regression to a child-like state in which one looks to "adults" for help, such as the government. This state of "shock" she said, happened because those affected by the disaster could not mentally process what has occurred to them; they could not fit it into their mental narrative of their life and the world. She offered as examples survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the nation in the aftermath of 9/11.

Hmmmmm. OK. Some folks appeared to behave in ways that support her thesis, like Ray Nagin and much of New Orleans, some did not, like the NYFD.

Assuming her central idea to be true, how can we prevent our going into "shock" following a disaster? If the cause is a lack of ability to process the experience into our narrative of the world, then perhaps we need to start with our world-view. As a professor of mine used to say, "If you find yourself becoming disillusioned, perhaps you had some illusions you needed dis-ed from."

Start by accepting the idea that bad things happen. If you live on the Gulf Coast or Southeast Coast of the U.S., you will get hit by hurricanes. Here in the Midwest, tornadoes; the Plains, blizzards; California, earthquakes and fires. Think about that fact. Imagine that fact.

Then, act like an adult. Make plans and take steps. Insure yourself and your home. In tornado alley, have a cellar or know where the nearest public storm shelter is. In California fire country, keep brush cut back near your house, use fire-resistant shingles. Along the coasts and in fire and flood country, choose carefully where you live.

Make plans. Talk to your family about your plans. Keep a supply of canned food and water in the house in case of utility outages. Make sure your local community has emergency plans, even if you must run for the city council to get it done.

The Pope met this week with the King of Saudi Arabia. Story here. and here. At his meeting Benedict XVI raised the issue of the lack of rights for the Christians in Saudi Arabia, mostly foreign workers. Good for him.

But what may be good to remember, is that there were Christians in Arabia before Islam. (And Jews.) These were conquered by the followers of Muhammad.

And on a related note, for those who think that Africa is somehow more naturally Islamic than Christian: Egypt and Nubia (Sudan), and north Africa were Christian before Islamic conquests. Some Christian Berber groups held out until the Middle Ages. Christian Ethiopia never submitted.

And for those who think the problems between Christianity and Islam started with the Crusades, I have old news. In addition to the lands above, the Middle East was Christian before the Islamic conquest, as was Iberia. Religion of Peace my infidel *ss.

Quoting the President of the United States:

"For nearly 30 years, the proceedings of the House of Representatives have been televised -- unfiltered, uninterrupted, unedited, and live. For this we can thank the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, or C-SPAN. And for C-SPAN, we can thank a visionary American named Brian Lamb.

"C-SPAN is not what you'd call exciting TV -- (laughter) -- though some of the call-in shows do have their moments. (Laughter.) It is, however, a tool that enlivens democracy, and informs and educates citizens of all ages -- at all hours.

"C-SPAN channels fill 17,000 broadcast hours a year. But you can watch for years and never hear anyone say the name Brian Lamb. Even Brian never says it.

"With his low-key manner, this native of Lafayette, Indiana likes to stick with substance. He's not there to provide commentary, or give much reaction either way. Yet vast numbers of Americans consider themselves fans of Brian Lamb. A writer from The Washington Post called it a "cult of non-personality." (Laughter.) The truth is, we've all seen him, and he's conducted some of the most fascinating interviews we have ever heard. As one C-SPAN watcher said, when you listen to Brian "You feel like he's just like you, only smarter." (Laughter.)

"Brian Lamb has spent most of his life in broadcasting, in a career that has taken many turns. The first program he ever hosted, back in the Midwest, was called "Dance Date," -- a side we haven't seen much of. (Laughter.) Brian Lamb is a Navy veteran; a former social aide here at the White House. In fact, when Brian was here a few months ago to interview a historian in the Lincoln Bedroom, the maitre d' of the residential staff of the White House remembered him from those days.

"The network Brian Lamb created has been called "scrupulously nonpartisan, [and] inherently patient." Committee hearings, and campaign events, and conferences, and rallies are shown from beginning to end, without editorial comment or interpretation. C-SPAN has no agenda, and only one assumption: that interested viewers are intelligent, and can make up their own minds about what they see and what they hear.

"An informed citizenry has been the strength of America since the days of the New England town hall. C-SPAN has revived the town-hall spirit for a modern, continental nation. For his enormous achievement and his personal modesty; for his high standards, and his contribution to our democracy, America is grateful to Mr. Brian Lamb. (Applause.)"

The Presidential Medal of Freedom citation reads:

"Brian P. Lamb. As the driving force behind the creation of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb has elevated our public debate and helped open up our government to citizens across the nation. His dedication to a transparent political system and to the free flow of ideas has enriched our civic life. He has helped empower Americans to know and understand their government and hold it accountable. The United States honors Brian Lamb for his efforts to ensure that his fellow citizens are well-informed participants in the American system of self-government through reflection and choice."

My thoughts: Amen.

Transcript from the ceremony via the White House website in full here.

Anyone for an outlandishly premature prediction?

Hillary vs. Fred in a national campaign that comes down to the wire, with Clinton clipping Thompson by a nose.

The nominees:

Why Hillary? You have heard me on all this before: she has the organization, she is surrounded by the best and brightest brain trust, she is partnered with the ultimate Democratic Party rock star, and she has grit. That is, Mrs. Clinton is more manly (in the nineteenth century, Harvey Mansfield sense) than any of her opponents.

Clinton is NOT the most electable general election candidate in the Democratic primary race. Barack Obama would be virtually unstoppable next November. He is a nearly perfect general election candidate: handsome, fresh, charismatic, and the most credible agent of change. Edwards, too, would have a good chance at winning, as he is appealing, approachable, and telegenic. Under the protection of a mainstream media desperate for a Democratic victory, both of those men would be incredibly difficult to defeat.

But the Democrats don't see things that way. They are awfully hung up on Obama's race, wondering if America can elect a black man as the "Great White Father." As for Edwards, he has not been able to penetrate the two-person duel. At this point, it seems more and more a two-horse race, and Hillary is still the odds-on favorite.

Why Fred? Thompson is not the most conservative of the GOP hopefuls--but he is plenty conservative. He is not the most articulate of the candidates--but he is certainly affable and persuasive. He is not the most handsome man in the race--but his is a stately and sturdy countenance. He is not the most red-state Republican of the nomination contestants--but he speaks fluently the language of the heartland. No dramatic knockout here, but once primary voters add up their scorecards, Thompson wins easily on points. My guess is that Thompson emerges with the nomination as the realization spreads over the Republican faithful that he is the candidate with whom they are the most comfortable.

One cautionary note: no Southern candidate ever won banking solely on the South. The South always comes through for its favorite sons, but the victories down South have often come too little and too late. Think Al Gore in 1988 and John Edwards in 2004. Successful Southerners must necessarily score dramatic wins early in the contest outside the South (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George Bush). Bottom line: Fred cannot wait for Super-Duper Tuesday to make his move. He must have momentum (more than merely South Carolina) before February 5.

November 4, 2008? After a plodding race, with Hillary playing conservatively trying not to blow her advantages, and Fred inching up consistently over the course of a methodical and laconic campaign, the final weeks turn frantic. So much on the line. So close.

In the end, like Jerry Ford in 1976, Fred Thompson falls just short: 49.9 to 49.1. Hillary wins Ohio and a comfortable electoral margin of victory.

No guarantees here. But today that's my vision. We'll see what tomorrow looks like.

Belgium still is without a new coalition government after June 10 elections. The problem? The nation is composed of two distinct groups speaking two languages and having two cultures: French speaking and Dutch speaking. Story from Breitbart.

Do we here in the U.S. really want to create a nation without a common language and a shared culture? What sort of glue would hold us together then?

"It cannot be too often repeated that what destroyed the Family in the modern world was Capitalism." G.K. Chesterton in "Three Foes of the Family" found in the collection of his essays The Well and the Shallows.

I want to continue stalking this quotation. First post. Second post.

Chesterton thought the Industrial Revolution to have been a tragedy for Britain and humanity. He not only objected to the noise, smoke, and ugliness of industrialization, but also to the commercial impulse behind it. He was the foe of Capitalism and of Communism.

Here is a long quote from his essay "Reflections on a Rotten Apple."

In all normal civilisations the trader existed and must exist. But in all normal civilisations the trader was the exception; certainly he was never the rule; and most certainly he was never the ruler. The predominance which he has gained in the modern world is the cause of the disasters of the modern world. The universal habit of humanity has been to produce and consume as part of the same process; largely conducted by the same people in the same place. Sometimes goods were produced and consumed on the same great feudal manor; sometimes even on the same small peasant farm. Sometimes there was a tribute from serfs as yet hardly distinguishable from slaves; sometimes there was a co-operation between free-men which the superficial can hardly distinguish from communism. But none of these many historical methods, whatever their vices or limitations, was strangled in the particular tangle of our own time; because most of the people, for most of the time, were thinking about growing food and then eating it; not entirely about growing food and selling it at the stiffest price to somebody who had nothing to eat. And I for one do not believe there is any way out of the modern tangle, except to increase the proportion of the people who are living according to the ancient simplicity.

To Chesterton, treating the world and the products derived from the world, merely as commodities for trade or sale, alienated society from its God-given human nature. Chesterton's economics was a part of his religious outlook. In the next post, Chesterton's Roman Catholicism.

An AP story from the New York Daily News.

MOSCOW - Alexander Feklisov, the Soviet-era spy chief who oversaw the espionage work of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and helped mediate the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, has died, a Russian official said Friday. He was 93.

Feklisov died Oct. 26, said Sergei Ivanov, a spokesman for the Foreign Intelligence Service, one of the successor agencies to the KGB. He gave no cause of death.

. . .

Years later, he published an autobiography, "The Man Behind the Rosenbergs," in which he described his work guiding the intelligence-gathering work of the couple. The Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 after being convicted of supplying the Soviet Union with top-secret information on U.S. efforts to develop the atomic bomb.

Feklisov said Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet sympathizer who handed over secrets on military electronics, but not the atomic bomb. He said Ethel Rosenberg played no part in spying - claims that were consistent with declassified U.S. intercepts of Soviet spy communications.

He was later dispatched to London, where he made contact with Klaus Fuchs, the German-born scientist who worked at the U.S. atom bomb project as well as at Britain's Harwell nuclear research laboratory. Information passed to the Soviets by Fuchs and another spy, David Greenglass, gave the Soviets crucial new information on a new way to ignite an atomic bomb.

In 1950, Fuchs was sentenced to 14 years for disclosing nuclear secrets. Full Story.

Contrary to the Liberal Orthodoxy of the 70s-90s, there were rational grounds for the Red Scare of the 1950s. The Soviets were active in spying and other activities in the U.S. McCarthy was still a power-hungry demogogue, but there was a bear on the prowl.

According to information compiled by insurers of pastors, things have changed for the worse.

Clergy experience over 90 percent more stress-related disorders than other people of a similar age. Stress and stress-related illnesses are primary factors for the deterioration of health in the clergy population. Thirty years ago the clergy profession ranked as one of the healthiest in the U.S. Today the reverse is true; clergy are experiencing some of the worst health trends in the nation.

In a related development, compared to past generations, clergy today are leaving their jobs in significant numbers, even those in mid-life.

As regular readers know, I am a member of the clergy--an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament in the Reformed Church in America. I pastor a small, primarily Native American, congregation and teach college courses to help support our family. So I take this news personally.

But, my point is not to whine. Instead, I have two things to say. First, if you are a Christian, pray for your pastor(s) and think about how you can be supportive. Second, I wonder what this information says about modern American culture, both within and without congregations. Future posts to follow.

Some Perspective: At this point during the last election cycle four years ago, the talking heads were anointing Howard Dean as the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president. But a funny thing happened on the way to the coronation.

Is Hillary the latest Howard Dean? I doubt it. Dean was an insurgent nobody from an out of the way state who caught fire unexpectedly and then flamed out just as suddenly. Dean embodied "flash in the pan."

Hillary Clinton is a second-term senator from the Empire State. She is the wife of a popular and incredibly powerful former president. She has been a mega public figure for sixteen years, thoughtfully charting a path to the Oval Office for nearly that long. She is loaded with cash, she has assembled the best campaign organization in recent memory, and she is the most disciplined candidate of my lifetime.

An aside: The Okie Gardener has previously compared Mrs. Clinton to Richard Nixon. No comparison to Nixon is ever favorable, but RN had some notably similar attributes necessary for success in politics. Like Mrs. Clinton, Nixon was not a naturally talented politician, but, like Mrs. Clinton, he made up for his lack of innate skill with hard work and tenacity. "You gotta want it to win it," and he usually wanted it more. Mrs. Clinton is a hard-charging, take-no-prisoners, tough-minded steamroller. She is a lot like Nixon in that regard.

What happened in the debate on Tuesday? Tim Russert and Brian Williams hammered her, and she staggered for a moment. Her stonewalling on the library question, her decision to pander to the ACLU-liberals rather than the working-class, rank-and-file Democrats on immigration, and her tendency to go overboard on sisterhood combined to leave her uncharacteristically dazed, confused, and momentarily vulnerable. Arriving at the debate intent on pounding the frontrunner, her desperately frustrated opponents saw an opening and pounced.

Nobody Knows Anything--but I think that those who are expecting Mrs. Clinton to fold like a house of cards at the first sign of trouble are reading her wrong. Hillary never craters. She never backs down. She never apologizes. She comes out swinging and plays through the pain, always pressing forward.

Hillary's Dilemma: Of course, her primary problem--the one that actually poses the biggest threat to her campaign for the nomination--continues to be her moderation on foreign policy.

Ironically, Mrs. Clinton's biggest obstacle in the Democratic primary is her sanity. For all of us who are rubbing our hands together with glee this week, we are not thinking very strategically. Of the Democrats who have a chance to win the nomination, Hillary is the one we have the best chance at beating. More importantly, of the Democrats who have a chance to win the nomination, Hillary is the one who is least likely to radically alter the course of American politics if she wins.

Hillary Clinton, like Richard Nixon, is a hard-boiled realist, who understands national vital interests as well as political necessities. She will throw rhetorical bones to the left but govern in the center, because she will want to be reelected. She will employ all the usual suspects of the American foreign-policy making establishment and pursue a moderate-to-firm course in international relations. She, like her husband, will accept the necessity of "torture" under certain dire circumstances. She will not be what we want, but neither will she rock the boat very much. No socialist revolution. No unilateral retreat from American interests abroad. No Pollyannaish, Jimmy-Carter-like naiveté.

John Edwards is fairly close to reality when he says a "vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo."

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. We are honored. Please make yourself at home.