The Bosque Boys

Dr. Kennedy, for years a force in conservative Christianty and conservative politics has retired from the pulpit of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Story from the South Florida Sun-Sentiniel. In December he suffered heart problems and has been absent from the pulpit. See my previous post for more details on his significance.

While in Savannah, we stopped and visited with a couple of black men on the sidewalk near the river working with palm leaves and sweet grass. One was making baskets, the other palm-leaf "roses." The older man, making the baskets, talked about the place of sweet-grass baskets in the local culture in the old days-- a skill brought over from Africa and used by the slaves to make storage containers and carriers for food and water. He harvested the sweet-grass himself on the coastal islands. However, getting the grass is becoming harder, he said. Rich people are buying up the islands for their own private use, and developers are putting in resorts and condos. Result, less sweet-grass, and that which remains often legally off-limits. In addition, the government is now trying to protect the remaining sweet-grass and frowns upon harvest. He confessed he did not know what the future held for people like himself. A small basket of his now sits on our coffee table.

This conversation reminded me that economic development, and government regulation, often hits the little guy hard. I've seen it in agriculture. Housing creeps out into the country, and suddenly the hog farmer whose family has been raising hogs for generations finds he has neighbors who object, sometimes in court, to the smells and sounds of hogs. And, government regulations often hurt small producers. Regulations are written to prevent feedlot runoff, or to up the standards for milk production; small producers find it difficult to meet the cost of the regulations, and so must either expand or get out of the business.

The irony is that the local environment might be able to handle a few dispersed small producers, but is strained by a collection of large producers.

The Washington Monthly has come out with a ranking of the nation's colleges and universities based on "what colleges are doing for the country."

We use three criteria that we believe best measure the impact schools have on the country. The first is social mobility: does the school do a good job recruiting and graduating poorer students? The second is research: is the school supporting the scientific and humanistic study that is key to our national strength, by producing PhDs and winning research grants? And the third is service: how effectively does the school foster an ethic of giving back to the country, either through military or civilian service?

How refreshing: analysis based on contribution to the common good, rather than merely what might be good for individual gain. Also, since good education involves the formation of good character, I think this effort at ranking is needed.

Top ranked National University: Texas A&M
Top Liberal Arts College: Presbyterian College (S.C.)
Top Community College: Atlanta Technical College

The Templeton Foundation also recognizes colleges on the basis of programs for character formation. The Templeton Honor Roll is here.

I appeared on local TV this morning to comment on the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Although I grimaced visibly on camera when they introduced me as a political scientist, I recovered enough to throw out a few not-very-original observations and generalities during my four-minute spot. Here is a summary of my analysis, with just a bit of expansion.

1. The resignation comes as a great relief to both sides:

--For the GOP, the White House capitulation buoys the spirits of the Beltway faithful, who were convinced that Gonzales was not up to the job. Republicans are happy to have the AG retreating from the field of battle and hopeful that the President will replace him with a more competent warrior (a la a Robert Gates for Don Rumsfeld switch).

--For the Democrats, the resignation takes away the building pressure to make the case against Gonzales. The rising expectation among the hardcore left was that the AG had committed an illegal act; therefore, the majority party would find a smoking gun, dramatically confront Gonzales and take him off to jail. The hoped-for Perry Mason moment was a promise unlikely to be realized.

With all the investigations and awkward testimony, the Democrats were still millions of miles away from proving a criminal act. In truth the President and the Congress were at an impasse. The Democrats are happy to have the conflict resolved in a way that appears to be a big public victory. I don't take very seriously Harry Reid's declarations to pursue this scandal all the way to the bitter end. Democratic leadership is happy to have this perceived positive conclusion.

2. There was nothing unprecedented about the relationship between Gonzales and the President. The AG is at the heart of any administration--and presidents generally don't pick independent and/or apolitical department heads. Loyalty counts. It was not at all extraordinary for a president to pick a close friend (or even a relative) to head Justice. Perhaps the most egregious example is JFK and RFK--but more in line with Bush and Gonzales, Ronald Reagan picked life-long chum, William French Smith, as his AG, and Jimmy Carter tapped long-time political associate, Griffin Bell, for the post.

3. The Gonzales legacy? None. Gonzales was not AG long enough to carve out a legacy (or permanently injure the institution). Moreover, how many Attorneys General can most people name? It is a tough job and most folks don't do it for long. The longest serving AG was William Wirt (1817-1829). The second longest-serving? Janet Reno (1993-2001).

4. The office of the Attorney General is an inherently political position. Before John Ashcroft was a saint in the eyes of the Gonzales persecutors--the former AG was a sinner guilty of vicious crimes against the peace and tranquility of the republic. Janet Reno was a political lightning rod for Bill Clinton--as was Ed Meese for Ronald Reagan, to name only a few.

5. Who Next?

--Michael Chertoff? He is a famous and esteemed lawyer--but we wonder about his skill sets for running a big agency. Does the Bush administration really want a national conversation about Katrina?

--A sitting senator? Who would want to give up a Senate seat for a short-term gig in this situation in which the WH is unpopular and under siege and the opposition party smells blood. No thanks.

--A former senator? Maybe. I hear Mike DeWine mentioned. He would be a good choice--but a long shot, nevertheless.

--Fred Thompson? Perhaps a face-saving way to avoid running for president.

--Rudy?

--Paul Clement for the long haul?

6. What Next? More of the same. There are no initiatives to pursue. There are no more rewarding moments to anticipate in this administration. George Bush and company have one objective: secure Iraq and protect American foreign policy interests one hill at a time. Anybody who joins this outfit at this point can expect a long hard slog until January 20, 2009. Not to say that this is not an important mission. It is vitally important. But it is not going to be glamorous, exhilarating or enjoyable. No matter, some good American is going to have to do it.

Scientists in Britain are asking permission to create animal-human hybrids for genetic research. Story here from The Guardian.

One of the foundation stones of our culture has been the idea/belief that humans are unique. We hold ourselves to standards we do not apply to animals--a dog may be put down for killing a person, but will not be put on trial. A man may be charged with killing a dog, but it will not be a murder charge. We may protest the construction of a new dam on a river, but will not hold a protest at the site of a beaver dam. If while driving, the only two choices are hitting an animal, and having a head-on with another car, we run over the animal. If we are stranded with another person and a dog, and have only enough food for two persons, we feed the other person and let the dog starve, or eat it. And so on.

Animal-human hybrids raise profoundly disturbing questions. But, science has no mechanism within itself to consider whether or not something that can be done should be done. Science cannot ask or answer "should" questions. We must turn to philosophy and religion.

Reader/Commentator Tocq sent this link that pertains to this issue.

Some newspapers, including the Washington Post, did not run a popular comic strip over the weekend because it might offend Muslims. The same papers have had no qualms about running materials that might offend Christians. I guess bombs and beheadings speak louder than words. Story.

Liberals said there would be more censorship if Bush were elected; there is, but not from Ashcroft, Gonzales, et al.

While in Georgia visiting our son in the Navy, we four (me, wife, son, son's girlfriendnowfiancee) made an overnight trip to Savannah. The old section truly is a beautiful city: Spanish moss, old buildings, streets laid out in squares, a waterfront along the river.

One thing I noticed was advertisements for "Ghost Tours" showing "Haunted Savanannah." We ran into one such tour while walking that night.

Such tours are not unique to Savannah. I've noticed such in other cities, and any bookstore can sell you print versions of regional ghost stories. Why the popularity? Here's a speculation. Modernity is ultimately dissatisfying to a human being. We need mystery, depth, connection to a larger universe than provided by the senses. Most folks, even moderns, have needs that basically are religious. If you don't participate in a religious community, who ya gonna call to have some sort of numinous experience? I'd like to know the background and belief-systems, and religious participation of those who take the tours, especially those who take more than one tour.

Decades ago Chesterton wrote in one of his Father Brown stories that the decline of Christianity was not being accompanied by a rise in strict atheism, but by a rise in superstition.

I missed the anniversary August 14 of the Martyrs of Otranto: 800 men of the Italian city who refused to convert to Islam after its capture by Muslims in 1480 and were beheaded for their choice. Gaypatriot has the story.

The Long War continues. May our courage not falter.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution online, a new Hindu temple will open.

Almost all Hindus are Indian, or of Indian descent. And they have made very good additions to America. Welcome folks. Though I will pray for your conversion to Christianity. But, you are welcome to pray for my conversion to Hinduism if you choose. We'll respect each other's beliefs and affirm our own.

As posted before, I consider India to be a natural ally of the United States. We share a common wariness toward China, attacks by Islamic terrorists, and the shared values of democratic government. Evidently officials in Washington think the same way as evidenced by recent increases in military cooperation with India. Story here from The Times of India.