The Bosque Boys

In Ray Bradbury's novel, Farenheit 451, published in 1953, a future America is a nation in which books are banned. While it is the government which searches for and burns books, it has merely institutionalized a popular movement. In Bradbury's alternate history, book burning began as a popular movement. Americans came to believe that each had the right not to be offended. Since any book will somehow offend someone, ergo burn the books.

Books are not as important to Americans as they once were. (Is there an author from whom our culture eagerly awaits the next book, as in years past we awaited the next Updyke, Bellow, Hemmingway, Steinbeck?) But, Bradbury may prove a prophet yet for other forms of expression. This article covers fascist-style denial of free speech on college campuses. And this essay by Victor Davis Hanson on the loss of will in the West to defend free speech.

An interesting essay from the NYT. Thanks to Tocqueville.

The slow schism in the American Episcopalian church may be picking up speed. This report from the Modesto Bee covers the upcoming decision of the San Joaquin diocese (area ruled by a bishop) on whether or not to remain in the denomination. Denominational support for same-sex sex is the stated reason for unhappiness.

Several parishes have left the Episcopalians while remaining within world-wide Anglicanism under the authority of a foreign bishop, usually third-world. We'll see what happens in California. (would Farmer use his California insight to tell us about the political leanings of this area of Ca.?)

I want to pose a question that many will regard as heretical, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line, and that may render me unable to return to Texas. Question: Can a Christian remain faithful and participate in or watch football?

I know that lots of players and coaches at all levels are outspoken Christians. I know that many football games in the south are opened with prayer regardless of the courts. But the question is not Do Christians participate in and watch football, but rather can we do this and be consistent in the Faith?

Raised in Missouri, I grew up a Chiefs fan and a University of Missouri fanatic. On Saturdays I lived and died with MU and on Sundays I rooted for Len Dawson and company as though the fate of the world hung in the balance (and hated the Raiders as if they were the forces of the antichrist). In elementary school we played football at recess (tackle if we could get away with it, touch if the teacher on duty was paying attention). I was not and am not particularly athletic, but enjoyed playing football when I got to Jr. High and on for a while.

So, what causes me to ask this question? (more below)

» Read More

Sylvester Stallone is reaching out to the churches to publicize his new movie. As he does this he is sharing his story of faith and redemption. A report and response to a conference call with Stallone here from Focus on the Family. Link from Drudge.

Is Stallone for real? Of course I don't know. But, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. His Rocky movies had a Roman Catholic sensibility about them (think of the priest and the statue of Jesus, etc.), probably reflecting Stallone's own upbringing. But his private life went downhill into self-absorbed hedonism.

Has Stallone had a spiritual experience, calling him back to the faith of this childhood? I hope so. We'll have a better idea a few years from now. Jonathan Edwards, the colonial preacher and theologian, wrestled with the question of how to distinguish genuine from spurious religious experience. He was well aware that people can be caught up in emotional experiences and mistake them for spiritual. But he also believed profoundly in the reality of God's grace. Edwards' answer was "Wait and see." Genuine spiritual experience has staying power, leading to a Christian life over the long haul. Spurious experience fades and disappears.

In his assessment this New England pastor was echoing his Master, who told the story of seed sown on various sorts of ground. Some sprouted and looked good for a time, but eventually withered in the heat. The seed falling on good soil endured and produced a harvest.

The problem is not that we invaded Iraq. The problem is that we are currently losing the fight for stability in Iraq.

Just for the record, one more time, here are the reasons that going into Iraq made sense at the time:

1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.

2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.

3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.

4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.

5. All of that seemed no longer tenable in a post-9-11 world. Why? Saddam was connected to 9-11 in that the insecurity he created in the region contributed to the greater instability and discontent, which facilitated terrorism. If Saddam could be deposed, many of us believed that a new Iraq would emerge, which would begin a process that might lead to an era of reform in the Middle East, which might ultimately make Islamic terrorists as rare and irrelevant as Ku Klux Klan terrorists.

All that to say, Iraq was a war of choice--but it was not a frivolous choice. Granted, now we face potential crises in the region of our own making that dwarf the old inconveniences. However, while it is tempting to view the past through the knowledge of the present, we must remember that the Iraq policy emerged from a long list of terrible choices. Doing nothing was an extremely unattractive option in the post-9-11 world.

The Bottom Line: all of that is unalterable history. Now What?

We are about to enter one of the most crucial periods in our national history. What happens in Iraq is vital to our future. There is a cacophony of voices on where we went wrong, who is at fault and what to do now. We should not panic. We must be careful not to succumb to our collective depression. There are answers to be found. Troubled times call for steady hands and an understanding of and a recommitment to who we are as a nation.

Although I offer no solutions in this post, here is a word or two in re perspectives, which go along way in determining how one views the predicament. In essence, there are three main camps regarding the present crisis in Iraq:

1. Those who were against the war from the beginning. They see Iraq as doomed from the outset and an egregious and unnecessary mistake. They blame the President, the neo-cons, the media, and all the other echelons of less-adamant citizens who were inclined to trust American institutions and support the war. They tend to want out at any cost, honestly believing that the price of withdrawal (no matter how high) is less onerous than a continued military commitment.

2. Those who favored the war initially, but who, at some point, soured on the action as a result of the failed reconstruction. They see Iraq as a defensible war of choice, disastrously prosecuted by an inept Bush administration. They are bitter and humiliated, and they blame the President and his men for making them look like fools. They also blame the MSM for reporting the war in a way that limited American options and facilitated the popular disgust that exacerbates the current dilemma. Most of them are hoping that James Baker and the return of the realists will somehow blaze a path to "peace with honor;" that is, cutting our losses and surviving to fight another day.

3. Those who continue to support the war and our original objectives. They believe that staying the course will eventually bring peace to Iraq and the greater Middle East. They have not given up and believe that the policy will work, if given enough time. Generally, they are loyalists by nature: loyal to party; loyal to country; loyal to their President. Mainly, they tend to lash out at the media and blame the "disloyal" Democratic opposition for most of our ills, although they are quietly frustrated with the administration as well. However, even these optimistic stalwarts are composing the rationale for failure in Iraq.

An important point: None of these groups are particularly objective; their perspectives are altered by, respectively, inordinate skepticism, excessive vanity and uncritical fidelity.

An important related point: how you view the war today, in large part, depends on how you felt about the war in the spring of 2003.

Disclosure: I am mostly a hybrid between groups two and three. I am a frustrated loyalist; I wax between complete despair and cautious optimism.

Truism: Success has many authors; Failure is a bastard.

Another Truism: Things are never as bad as they seem.

I'm a white guy who speaks English as my native language. Living in the US I have not had much experience at being a member of any minority group. (Though the city of Cincinnati does prohibit discrimination against people of Appalachian ancestry. My people, however, left Appalachia about 140 years ago.) Now I find myself a member of a minority--married folks. And, I suppose I'm in a shrinking demographic--married nearly 28 years and never divorced. A member of a minority group, how did that happen?

The following are the unscientific thoughts of this one 50-year old, not based on sociology, just close observation of the latter half of the twentieth-century. One more fact before I begin, the average age of first marriage now has risen into the late twenties. (more below)

» Read More

This year's Nobel Peace Prize entertainment has been set. One of the performers is the singer formerly know as Cat Stevens. Now, following his conversion to Islam, he supports censorship and the death penalty for "blasphemy." Among other things. Here. Only a well-educated elite could miss the irony. Hattip DhimmiWatch.

The Washington Times has this article. Thanks to Tocqueville.

Here are the opening pargraphs:

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

At the very least, the actions of the imams was provocative. Let's assume for the moment that the above report is exaggerated. And the behavior was innocent. In that case, problems probably could have been avoided by speaking to fellow passengers beforehand in a friendly way--"Hi, my name is Ahmad and I'm flying to Phoenix. How are you? By the way, it is almost time for my friends and I to pray, please don't be alarmed. We hate the radicals who pervert Islam into terrorism."

But, that probably will never happen because Islam teaches its own superiority, and the inferiority of infidels, in such as way that it would be a rare imam indeed who would show a good deal of consideration for a nonbeliever in a public place.

And, I suspect that this incident was intended to generate a move in the Democrat controlled Congress after Christmas to prohibit all profiling.