The Bosque Boys

Gateway Pundit has this picture. I had overlooked the cross on Putin's bare chest. (Guess I didn't look closely enough.) Putin had already openly embraced the Russian Orthodox church.

Putin's, and the Russian government's, relationship to the Russian Orthodox Church have been the subject of various speculations. See

Here , here , and this quote from The Atlantic:

Over the years, Atlantic correspondent Paul Starobin has researched Putin's history and background and spoken both with those who know him personally and with political analysts who have studied his behavior. In "The Accidental Autocrat" (March Atlantic), Starobin portrays Russia's leader as a complex mixture of seemingly incongruous parts. There is Putin the fighter—a man who describes himself as having a "pugilistic nature," and who has long held a black belt in judo. There is Putin the canny former KGB operative—rigorously trained to calculate his every move and to dispense information sparingly. And then there is Putin the believer—a man of faith, who as a child absorbed his mother's strong Orthodox Russian beliefs and continues to practice devoutly.

Putin's faith will not necessarily put him on the road to democracy or friendship with the U.S. Like a good Czar he wants Russia to be a Great Power and is most comfortable with centralized authority. Won't it be ironic if Lenin turns out to have been painting over the Russian mosaic with watercolors, and now it's raining.

Entering Arkansas we noticed a sign urging us to visit the Wineries of Arkansas. Along I-40 in the western part of the state we saw billboards for this or that winery, inviting us to stop in for a tasting. Same thing in Tennessee. And earlier this summer, believe it or not, in Iowa.

I'm guessing that wine-tasting tourism must be the latest boomer thing.

While we passed on the wineries, we did stop almost daily for a mid-afternoon break in a coffeeshop, both Starbucks and independents. Even in the mountains of western North Carolina we found a coffee shop with wi-fi in a small town along the highway; and we were not the only customers.

It seems to me that Americans, as a whole, must be in pretty good shape financially. And must have confidence in their economic future. I'll believe the contrary to be true when I see coffee shops closing and wine sales going down.

This story about an Australian bishop that has closed the doors of the churches under his jurisdiction to liberal American Episcopalian author and speaker, retired Bishop Shelby Spong.

Meanwhile the countdown continues: Anglican bishops from the Global South have demanded repentance from Episcopalians by September 30.

See this site.

From Jihadwatch, this post on life for Christians in Pakistan. Excerpt:

Christians make up only 1.5% of the 167 million Pakistanis. According to Father Asi, they are often treated as second-class citizens, denied basic human rights and victimized by social discrimination and political oppression.

Another installment in my continuing attempt to explain my sympathy and admiration for the President:

In my American history class, I sometimes ask my students to relate their favorite literary character. The most worrisome answer (and one that is increasingly more common): "I don't have one."

Having said that, the exercise generally provides one of my most enjoyable class days. There are some expected favorites: Harry Potter is very popular. When the Tolkien novels were current movies, I got a lot of Bilbo Bagginses. But there are also some classic figures that come up very often: the Count of Monte Cristo, Elizabeth Bennet, Holden Caulfield, and Gus McCrae to name a few.

Oftentimes it turns out that a favorite literary character is a seemingly ordinary person with whom we can identify--but who falls into a desperate situation that none of us would want to be in. The hero faces the crisis with extraordinary courage, exhibiting unexpected traits we hope that we might call forth in similarly dire straits.

This is essentially the story of George Bush. He is the archetypal everyman who finds himself in a horrific mess (the presidency in the post-9/11 era). He reacts with admirable courage and summons strength from the depths of his soul. To borrow a phrase from a great historian long deceased: he surpasses himself.

Of course, we don't know how the story ends. Right now we are in the third act and things are caving in on our hero. Can he turn the tide of misfortune and snatch victory from the forces of evil? Or will he prove the ultimate tragic figure--defeated and humiliated in the end by his outsized but flawed personality?

Only time will tell--but I cannot put this book down.

In an earlier post, I pointed out that small-government conservatives need to observe the corollary of our beliefs: we need to be involved in one or more of the myriad of voluntary groups that better society and help meet human need. Today, a second corollary.

In the last post I mentioned the flooding we had recently, and the need some people have for shelter after being flooded out of their homes. Now and in the coming months these families will need to show responsible character. What am I talking about?--Will they move back into their houses that flooded, or will they make another choice and move out of a floodplain? Moving back into a house on a floodplain is irresponsible: you are, in effect, counting on society to help you out of your difficulties when you are flooded again. You are acting in a dependent way. Perhaps the closest one can come to living in a flood plain responsibly is by setting up a "flooded-out" savings account, hoping to have enough money in it for food and motel bills for next time. The second corollary for small-government conservatives is family responsibility.

Floods don't endanger property: building in flood plains endangers property.

I caught just a glimpse of C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning (here). Peter Slen's guest during the second hour was Air America on-air personality, Rachel Maddow, who offered her slant on politics in between viewer calls.

Walking by the TV, I was struck by her snarky throw-away analysis of the rationale for war in Iraq (paraphrasing):

Did we go to war over WMD? Or to depose a ruthless dictator? Or to liberate women from Muslim fundamentalism? Or to shore up a leaky sanctions regime? Or to make the Middle East less unstable? Or to move offending American troops out of Saudi Arabia? Or to provide consequences for a rogue state that flouted international authority?

Her litany of "shifting justifications" implied that the President should pick ONE.

The answer to those "either/or" questions, obviously, is YES. We invaded Iraq for all the reasons enumerated above and more.

It is unfair to single out this one unfortunate person, for she is emblematic of a host of Bush detractors. In fact, I continue to be puzzled by the plethora of well-educated anti-war activists who reject multi-causal reasoning on this particular issue.

Maddow, an authentic "San Francisco liberal," possesses genuine progressive intellectual bona fides.

From her bio (in full here):

"Rachel has a doctorate in political science [from Oxford] (she was a Rhodes Scholar) and a background in HIV/AIDS activism, prison reform, and other lefty rabblerousing."

"Rachel is 33 years old and lives in New York City and rural Western Massachusetts with her partner, artist Susan Mikula."

And from another friendly source, Maddow, a Stanford grad, "became the first openly-gay American to be awarded a Rhodes Scholarship."

If someone asked Dr. Maddow a serious question of great import, my guess is that she would pause, scratch her chin, look deeply into the eyes of the inquirer and say:

"That is a complicated issue for which there are no simple answers."

I am an historian by training. The first day of history school we were all made to write fifty times on the blackboard:

"History is the multi-layered study of change over time. Mono-causal explanations for human events are rarely accurate. Rather, think in terms of multiple motives. History is the product of a complicated web of contingency."

I am confident that Dr. Maddow understands this truism. In fact, my hunch is that she thinks President Bush is a simpleton inclined toward "black and white" thinking. Furthermore, I wager that she consciously favored the candidate in 2004 that she thought understood that "nuance" was an essential element to good leadership.

Ironically, the people who are, in general, most likely to see the world as "complex" and "gray" are the same folks who are most likely to frame this particular issue in the most elementary terms.

My question: are Dr. Maddow and her cohorts purposely demagoguing the issue for partisan reasons? That is, all's fair in love, war, and in aid of a just cause, which includes employing rhetorical leger demain to sway the public debate.

Or, are they so blinded by their opposition to the President that they have temporarily lost their intellectual moorings, forsaking years of training and falling into the logical quick sand of "either/or" reasoning and monocausality?

These are complicated questions for which there are no definitve answers.

Regardless, the public discourse is ill-served by this brand of sloppy thinking.

Saturday night Southwest Oklahoma flooded. People evacuated from low-lying areas, water over the roads, at least a half-dozen people drowned. Here in our area a number of people are now homeless.

Yesterday evening I was working in the yard when I received a phone call from the police asking me to meet with the Red Cross. I went to the police station then was directed to the community center where a shelter would be set up. We had a quick meeting with the Red Cross team, determined what needed to be done to set up the shelter, then got to it. (I don't know why I was the only minister there; though I can imagine that given my parishioners I deal with the police more than most pastors in town, so mine may have been the first name thought of.) The call was put out for the volunteer fire department and we proceeded to sweep floors, unload the Red Cross trailer, and then set up cots, etc. By the time I left the first family was being checked into the shelter.

I am a small-government citizen. That is, I want my governments, federal and state, to be as small and inexpensive as possible. But, there is a corollary to this position. I must, therefore, be an active citizen giving of my time and treasure to ensure that needs are met on the local level. No true conservative can stand around and say, "Why don't they do something?" We want less "they." So we must be willing to pitch in ourselves. See this earlier post.

I have heard rumblings from members of our small but dedicated reading community in re their expectation that the Okie Gardener might offer some words of wisdom concerning Barry Bonds and his record-breaking 756th career homerun.

Reminder: Last spring, the Gardener penned a very fine mini memoir in re Baseball, which reflected in part on Barry Bonds and 713 (review here).

Roger Angell, in the New Yorker, offers an instructive look at the latest chapter of the story here. Angell points out that the baseball purists who bemoan the steroid-assisted record as violating the sanctity of baseball seem to assume erroneously that baseball existed undefiled. Angell is right to remind us that baseball never really was a "kid's game."

My thoughts: Like the Gardener confessed last year, I cannot care about Bonds or his contemporaries. Although my lack of concern springs from slightly different grievances, my apathy for modern baseball nevertheless overrides any feelings of excitement or disgust.

One personal note: I am glad Bonds did not break the record in Dodger Stadium. There was speculation that Dodger fans were set to "boo" the "surly cheat" from the detestable Giants. I am glad the historic ball field at Elysian Park played no role in this culmination.

Apropos in the most general sense, below are some recycled thoughts on my youth in Southern California and winning (and losing) the Dodger way (originally written in reaction to a piece in defense of rowdy "free speech" at publicly financed stadiums--the original in full here).

Perhaps the game wasn't purer back then--but I certainly was. Thoughts on the game from when I was a kid:

I love West Coast baseball.

I grew up going to Dodger games in Chavez Ravine. I still hear Vin Scully in my dreams.

An aside: different sport, but I continue to mourn the death of Chick Hearn. I came of age during a glorious period of sports broadcasting in the City of Angels.

My dad took me to my first baseball game when I was five or six. Someone told him that one-dollar tickets were available--but upon inspection of the grandstands, we opted for the three-dollar loge seats (FYI: those seats are now $45.00 per customer for walk-ups on game day).

There were no banners back then (or facial hair on the players, for that matter). The O'Malley's didn't allow that sort of thing; it wasn't in keeping with "winning the Dodger way." I can't remember anyone selling beer--but I know it must have been for sale. People must have been imbibing--but I can't remember any drunks.

I rarely sat close enough to see balls and strikes--or near enough for the ballplayers to hear anything I yelled--but I don't remember riding the umps or taunting the opposing players.

Undoubtedly, my memory has filtered out much ugliness; my mind tends to work that way. On the other hand, California was a more laid-back place back then.

For example, living our lives in the world's foremost car culture, hearing a car horn was extremely rare. And it was almost always friendly or essential (employed for the elevated purpose of avoiding an accident). People who drove around honking their horns were looking for trouble. The dominant Southern California subculture back then was "Okie" or Southern. Honking your horn, yelling coarse insults and/or obscene gestures was tantamount to "calling out" another motorist. The recipients of such calumny were honor bound to answer these insults with physical violence. One might reasonably argue that such retaliation was the opposite of civility--but, in effect, the strict code automobuello kept most folks relatively docile and polite. The influx of "New Yorkers" (meaning all East Coasters and Yankees from the "Old Northwest") and later Middle Easterners and other international cultures changed all that. Now there is plenty of honking, yelling and "flipping people off." Forgettaboutit! Of course, the one exception to all this communication involves motorists who look like they may be gang-bangers. For fear of lethal retaliation, most Angelinos mind their manners in confrontations with "dangerous looking" young people.

Having said all that, I can imagine Dodger Stadium is a much rowdier (and probably more dangerous) place than it was when I was growing up. Back then we were the guests of the O'Malley family; if we didn't treat their facility with respect, I think we expected to be asked to leave. We certainly would have never questioned the ownership's right to tell us to go home. Perhaps, such a request might have elicited an "easy, dude, I'm going" sort of huff--but I can guarantee none of us would have reached for our First Amendment lawyers.

We live in interesting times.

Disclosure: I have not actually been back to Dodger Stadium since the O'Malleys sold the club to Newscorp in 1998, which subsequently sold the team to some guy from Boston.