04/06: Scenes From a Group Marriage
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
"I was a normal 9-year-old boy with two parents. And then, after a fateful camping trip, I had four."
UPDATE: One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems
UPDATE: One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems
Category: American Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
In May The Pew Form sponsored another biennial conference on faith, public policy, and politics attended by scholars and journalists. One of the presenters was
D. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, described eight fallacies or misconceptions he held as he began his book. In the three years of his extensive research, he made surprising discoveries about the true power brokers and centers of power in American evangelicalism.
The book that resulted from his research, Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite was published in 2007 by Oxford University Press, and has been very well received.
He gave a talk on evangelicals that is must reading for everyone interested in American public policy and politics.Transcript.
Here are a couple of excerpts.
And I began to realize that there is a whole segment of the evangelical movement –many of those folks who are in the elite – who were trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of the evangelical subculture. And so I began to think more about this and pay more attention to it. And the real divide, in my opinion, in evangelicalism is not between the left and the right; it’s not between the young and the old. It is between a group that I call the “cosmopolitan” evangelicals and “populist” evangelicals. And these are very, very significant divisions.
You see, populist evangelicals are what we oftentimes think about evangelicals. These are the folks who are culture warriors, who say that they want to take back the country for their faith. They see themselves as embattled against secular society. They are very much concerned that they are in a minority position, and they’ve got to somehow use very strong-arm tactics to win the day.
So that populist evangelicalism is alive and strong, especially in the evangelical subculture: the music, the publishing, the entertainment segment of the evangelical subculture. But there is a whole other segment. The people who I interviewed, by and large, fit more this cosmopolitan outlook. They are less interested in taking back the country for their faith. They really are more interested in their faith being seen as authentic, reasonable, and winsome. So they still have an evangelistic impulse, but their whole modus operandi looks quite different. Because of that they have different ultimate goals of what they are actually trying to achieve. They want to have a seat at the table. They want to be seen as legitimate. They are concerned about what The New York Times or TIME magazine thinks about evangelicals because they [the cosmopolitan evangelicals] are concerned about cultural elites. They want legitimacy. Legitimacy is actually more important to them than necessarily taking back the country. And so that cosmopolitan-populist divide I find to be quite significant.
...
I think there are some issues that people assume will be huge elements that I think are going to go away: same-sex unions, for example. I think the train has left the station. I don’t think evangelicals 20 years from now will be raising concerns about it. I think same-sex unions will be across the country in 20 years. And I don’t think evangelicals will raise a very big stink because this is one of the issues where you do see very significant generational divides. Older evangelicals are very opposed to it; younger evangelicals are not. And in this way, it mirrors the rest of the country.
...
The sixth fallacy I had is that faith in politics, if we have to look at how religion fits into politics, it is most centrally about domestic issues. It is most centrally about abortion and about same-sex unions, those kinds of things. When in fact the real story, the real interesting story, is foreign affairs. Fifty years ago, evangelicals were vehemently opposed to foreign aid. They were opposed to interventionism. In fact, some of the strongest opposition that President Woodrow Wilson received for some of his policies when he was in office was from fellow conservative Christians. They said that we should not be involved in multilateral relationships. This was quite upsetting.
The major turnaround that evangelicals have made on issues about foreign aid and foreign investment is quite significant. Today, for example, evangelicals are very, very positive, very high on USAID and the State Department. Why is this? Well, over the last 20 years, we have witnessed a de-professionalization of foreign missions – and that’s a significant development. You see, 50 years ago, evangelicals were sending missionaries by the droves to China, to India, to all over. What has happened is that there has been a paradigm shift within the evangelical community. Now you don’t necessarily send somebody for the rest of his or her life to go and do foreign missions; now you send a lot more people for shorter-term ventures. People go for two weeks, for a month, for a summer, for a year, for two years, and this has changed the dynamic. What it’s done is exposed a lot more average evangelicals to a global culture. So you’ve got 7,000 members of Saddleback Church who have now traveled to Rwanda to go and do development and aid in very interesting ways.
D. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, described eight fallacies or misconceptions he held as he began his book. In the three years of his extensive research, he made surprising discoveries about the true power brokers and centers of power in American evangelicalism.
The book that resulted from his research, Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite was published in 2007 by Oxford University Press, and has been very well received.
He gave a talk on evangelicals that is must reading for everyone interested in American public policy and politics.Transcript.
Here are a couple of excerpts.
And I began to realize that there is a whole segment of the evangelical movement –many of those folks who are in the elite – who were trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of the evangelical subculture. And so I began to think more about this and pay more attention to it. And the real divide, in my opinion, in evangelicalism is not between the left and the right; it’s not between the young and the old. It is between a group that I call the “cosmopolitan” evangelicals and “populist” evangelicals. And these are very, very significant divisions.
You see, populist evangelicals are what we oftentimes think about evangelicals. These are the folks who are culture warriors, who say that they want to take back the country for their faith. They see themselves as embattled against secular society. They are very much concerned that they are in a minority position, and they’ve got to somehow use very strong-arm tactics to win the day.
So that populist evangelicalism is alive and strong, especially in the evangelical subculture: the music, the publishing, the entertainment segment of the evangelical subculture. But there is a whole other segment. The people who I interviewed, by and large, fit more this cosmopolitan outlook. They are less interested in taking back the country for their faith. They really are more interested in their faith being seen as authentic, reasonable, and winsome. So they still have an evangelistic impulse, but their whole modus operandi looks quite different. Because of that they have different ultimate goals of what they are actually trying to achieve. They want to have a seat at the table. They want to be seen as legitimate. They are concerned about what The New York Times or TIME magazine thinks about evangelicals because they [the cosmopolitan evangelicals] are concerned about cultural elites. They want legitimacy. Legitimacy is actually more important to them than necessarily taking back the country. And so that cosmopolitan-populist divide I find to be quite significant.
...
I think there are some issues that people assume will be huge elements that I think are going to go away: same-sex unions, for example. I think the train has left the station. I don’t think evangelicals 20 years from now will be raising concerns about it. I think same-sex unions will be across the country in 20 years. And I don’t think evangelicals will raise a very big stink because this is one of the issues where you do see very significant generational divides. Older evangelicals are very opposed to it; younger evangelicals are not. And in this way, it mirrors the rest of the country.
...
The sixth fallacy I had is that faith in politics, if we have to look at how religion fits into politics, it is most centrally about domestic issues. It is most centrally about abortion and about same-sex unions, those kinds of things. When in fact the real story, the real interesting story, is foreign affairs. Fifty years ago, evangelicals were vehemently opposed to foreign aid. They were opposed to interventionism. In fact, some of the strongest opposition that President Woodrow Wilson received for some of his policies when he was in office was from fellow conservative Christians. They said that we should not be involved in multilateral relationships. This was quite upsetting.
The major turnaround that evangelicals have made on issues about foreign aid and foreign investment is quite significant. Today, for example, evangelicals are very, very positive, very high on USAID and the State Department. Why is this? Well, over the last 20 years, we have witnessed a de-professionalization of foreign missions – and that’s a significant development. You see, 50 years ago, evangelicals were sending missionaries by the droves to China, to India, to all over. What has happened is that there has been a paradigm shift within the evangelical community. Now you don’t necessarily send somebody for the rest of his or her life to go and do foreign missions; now you send a lot more people for shorter-term ventures. People go for two weeks, for a month, for a summer, for a year, for two years, and this has changed the dynamic. What it’s done is exposed a lot more average evangelicals to a global culture. So you’ve got 7,000 members of Saddleback Church who have now traveled to Rwanda to go and do development and aid in very interesting ways.
03/06: Why Obama Won
The ultra short list in brief:
1. He is black. Joe Biden had it right: "this is story book, man."
Americans desperately want to elect a black president. Colin Powell could have had it. Condi might have scored a double. But Obama got there before anyone else. White America is going to feel great relief when this barrier is broken. As we find out more about Obama, he is much less story book than originally advertised--but his early momentum carried him through his dismal final three months.
Looking Ahead: this basic collective truth remains his most powerful asset in the Fall.
2. He pandered to the nutroots on the war.
Hillary ran a Fall Election campaign, offering a sober foreign policy strategy. Obama appealed to his party's extreme left wing, anti-war base. Once she realized her giant problem, she tried to get left--but it was too late.
Looking Ahead: this necessary primary tactic should prove his greatest liability in the Fall.
3. He dominated the caucuses. Ironically, the formerly insignificant smattering of caucuses in formerly insignificant places taken as a whole became "King Caucus" and provided his winning margin. She expected a quick knockout and bet everything on Super Tuesday. In truth, she was actually much better on the traditionally much more conclusive big primaries in big states than he was (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, etc.).
On the other hand, he bet on the caucus because he had no other choice. She bet on the primaries because it was the historically smarter strategy. Life is funny.
4. The mainstream media fell in love with him.
An Aside: Bill is exactly right about the pro-O bias (although he seems ignorant that the MSM devotion to his wife's opponent has been the status quo for every Republican candidate of the modern era).
Looking Ahead: needless to say, another huge advantage in the Fall.
1. He is black. Joe Biden had it right: "this is story book, man."
Americans desperately want to elect a black president. Colin Powell could have had it. Condi might have scored a double. But Obama got there before anyone else. White America is going to feel great relief when this barrier is broken. As we find out more about Obama, he is much less story book than originally advertised--but his early momentum carried him through his dismal final three months.
Looking Ahead: this basic collective truth remains his most powerful asset in the Fall.
2. He pandered to the nutroots on the war.
Hillary ran a Fall Election campaign, offering a sober foreign policy strategy. Obama appealed to his party's extreme left wing, anti-war base. Once she realized her giant problem, she tried to get left--but it was too late.
Looking Ahead: this necessary primary tactic should prove his greatest liability in the Fall.
3. He dominated the caucuses. Ironically, the formerly insignificant smattering of caucuses in formerly insignificant places taken as a whole became "King Caucus" and provided his winning margin. She expected a quick knockout and bet everything on Super Tuesday. In truth, she was actually much better on the traditionally much more conclusive big primaries in big states than he was (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, etc.).
On the other hand, he bet on the caucus because he had no other choice. She bet on the primaries because it was the historically smarter strategy. Life is funny.
4. The mainstream media fell in love with him.
An Aside: Bill is exactly right about the pro-O bias (although he seems ignorant that the MSM devotion to his wife's opponent has been the status quo for every Republican candidate of the modern era).
Looking Ahead: needless to say, another huge advantage in the Fall.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The always insightful, often absolutely brilliant, Charlie Cook on the end of this race:
1. The "calls [since mid February] for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton...to drop her bid for the sake of the party were," says Cook, "wrong and unfair...until now." But now she has no choice; she must go now.
More Cook: "At this point, the Clintons should begin thinking about their future and standing in the party. What they do over the next five months will determine what their standing will be. Will they be seen as party unifiers and team players, or party wreckers and sore losers?"
2. "On at least one level, Clinton has really helped herself this year," observes Cook. "She has shown a fight, a perseverance and a tenacity that has proven that she has heart. Nobody can deny that she's the real deal."
Amen.
3. "She needs to spend the rest of the summer and fall campaigning for...Obama and paying off her multi-million-dollar campaign debt," writes Cook.
[She very much needs to be in the position in which] "no one would be able to say that Hillary and Bill Clinton didn't do all they could to help Obama win the general election. And in all honesty, she could also be praying every night that he loses, so she could give folks the 'I told you so' look and have another shot in 2012."
1. The "calls [since mid February] for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton...to drop her bid for the sake of the party were," says Cook, "wrong and unfair...until now." But now she has no choice; she must go now.
More Cook: "At this point, the Clintons should begin thinking about their future and standing in the party. What they do over the next five months will determine what their standing will be. Will they be seen as party unifiers and team players, or party wreckers and sore losers?"
2. "On at least one level, Clinton has really helped herself this year," observes Cook. "She has shown a fight, a perseverance and a tenacity that has proven that she has heart. Nobody can deny that she's the real deal."
Amen.
3. "She needs to spend the rest of the summer and fall campaigning for...Obama and paying off her multi-million-dollar campaign debt," writes Cook.
[She very much needs to be in the position in which] "no one would be able to say that Hillary and Bill Clinton didn't do all they could to help Obama win the general election. And in all honesty, she could also be praying every night that he loses, so she could give folks the 'I told you so' look and have another shot in 2012."
03/06: Speculation and Oil Prices
I don't have the skills or resources to research the answer to my question, so I'll lay the question on you:
How big a part in the rise of oil prices is due to commodity futures trading, rather than current supply and demand?
UPDATE: I have located an essay by Raymond P. Learsy, whose bio states that his career was in commodites trading. His argument is that the current price of oil is indeed being manipulated by the futures trading of unkown agents, perhaps OPEC. He offers some evidence. I don't have the skills to do a good analysis of the essay, but, if I were running OPEC, I certainly would do whatever I could to keep prices high and push them higher.
UPDATE 2: Somehow I missed this item before. Congressional Democrats are accusing futures traders of artificially running up the price of oil.
"Legislation has been proposed to make speculation more difficult. But arguing that "rampant speculation" in the oil markets has helped drive up crude prices, Senate Democrats proposed a new measure that would increase the amount of money traders would have to put down when buying oil futures. With gas and oil prices at record levels, it makes no sense to allow this growing bubble of speculation to take place," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who is championing the measure. "By increasing the margin requirement, we will send a message to speculators that they will no longer be allowed to artificially drive up the price of oil and gas." Currently, traders must put down anywhere between 5 percent and 7 percent when making energy futures trades, compared with 50 percent for stocks. The legislation does not specify how high that new margin requirement should be. It would instruct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to require a "substantial increase" in the amount.
Sounds like reasonable regulation to me.
UPDATE 3: From England, this editorial in The Mail. Mostly invective without actual argument, to the effect that commodities futures trading is behind the run-up in oil prices. Link from Last of the Few. (Last of the Few is NSFW)
The practice of commodites futures trading raises serious questions. From a Christian point of view, I've had trouble with commodity futures trading. I am more familiar with agriculture than petroleum, so I'll use an example from that area. A commodities trader decides, for whatever reasons, that the price of corn will be higher in 8 months than it is now. So he begins "buying" corn futures at a price lower than he anticipates in 8 months. Let's say he is a big and well-known trader. Others follow his lead. Soon, the current market is responding to the demand and prices rise. (The reverse scenario could also happen.) Prices, therefore, in this example are going up not because of current supply and demand for actual use of corn, but because of forecasts.
And it's not like the traders have any intention of eating the corn they are buying, or feeding it to livestock, or making ethanol. These are purely money-making transactions in which the buyers and sellers never will see the product.
Christian economic theories are not agreed-upon dogma, but most of them stipulate that work done should be honest and needful. Does commodities futures trading meet this criteria? Also, I think most Christian economic theories would hold that price increases should reflect real conditions, not speculative ones, and be related to actual value, not merely market value.
Would Jesus be a commodities futures trader?
How big a part in the rise of oil prices is due to commodity futures trading, rather than current supply and demand?
UPDATE: I have located an essay by Raymond P. Learsy, whose bio states that his career was in commodites trading. His argument is that the current price of oil is indeed being manipulated by the futures trading of unkown agents, perhaps OPEC. He offers some evidence. I don't have the skills to do a good analysis of the essay, but, if I were running OPEC, I certainly would do whatever I could to keep prices high and push them higher.
UPDATE 2: Somehow I missed this item before. Congressional Democrats are accusing futures traders of artificially running up the price of oil.
"Legislation has been proposed to make speculation more difficult. But arguing that "rampant speculation" in the oil markets has helped drive up crude prices, Senate Democrats proposed a new measure that would increase the amount of money traders would have to put down when buying oil futures. With gas and oil prices at record levels, it makes no sense to allow this growing bubble of speculation to take place," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who is championing the measure. "By increasing the margin requirement, we will send a message to speculators that they will no longer be allowed to artificially drive up the price of oil and gas." Currently, traders must put down anywhere between 5 percent and 7 percent when making energy futures trades, compared with 50 percent for stocks. The legislation does not specify how high that new margin requirement should be. It would instruct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to require a "substantial increase" in the amount.
Sounds like reasonable regulation to me.
UPDATE 3: From England, this editorial in The Mail. Mostly invective without actual argument, to the effect that commodities futures trading is behind the run-up in oil prices. Link from Last of the Few. (Last of the Few is NSFW)
The practice of commodites futures trading raises serious questions. From a Christian point of view, I've had trouble with commodity futures trading. I am more familiar with agriculture than petroleum, so I'll use an example from that area. A commodities trader decides, for whatever reasons, that the price of corn will be higher in 8 months than it is now. So he begins "buying" corn futures at a price lower than he anticipates in 8 months. Let's say he is a big and well-known trader. Others follow his lead. Soon, the current market is responding to the demand and prices rise. (The reverse scenario could also happen.) Prices, therefore, in this example are going up not because of current supply and demand for actual use of corn, but because of forecasts.
And it's not like the traders have any intention of eating the corn they are buying, or feeding it to livestock, or making ethanol. These are purely money-making transactions in which the buyers and sellers never will see the product.
Christian economic theories are not agreed-upon dogma, but most of them stipulate that work done should be honest and needful. Does commodities futures trading meet this criteria? Also, I think most Christian economic theories would hold that price increases should reflect real conditions, not speculative ones, and be related to actual value, not merely market value.
Would Jesus be a commodities futures trader?
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
See this interview. Infidel Bloggers' Alliance has excerpts and a link to MEMRI.
The headline in the Chicago Sun-Times calls this an apology:
"The last few days have been the most painful days of my life, even more so than the murder of Jarvis, my foster son," Pfleger said.
"When the world is meeting you for the first time from a dramatization in a sermon that I felt was in the sacredness of a sanctuary, among people who know me, and then find a YouTube that in no way defines the sermon or the message that I preached, nor the person or pastor that I am, it is painful.
"It is also grieving to me when a 1.5-minute YouTube video becomes the headlines across the world of papers and news stations, while the tragedy and death of earthquakes, cyclones and tornadoes that have taken the lives of people around this world, while the killing of our children across this country and here in Chicago and the easy access to guns have become stories on page 18 and 19, and while people are at my front door, looking for food to eat or gas to get to work, indeed that grieves me," he said.
Perhaps, if by apology they meant this definition: "a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine."
Actually, it was more "victimology" than apology by any definition. Poor Father Pfleger.
UPDATE: One last thought. Enough with the "woe is me; I received umpteen death threats and scores of hate-emails" routine.
If you make it into the public eye, inevitably, there is going to be some loon someplace sitting at his computer feeling brave and anonymous writing some kind of "I'm gonna get you, sucker" note.
Stop crying, Father Pfleger, and take your medicine.
"The last few days have been the most painful days of my life, even more so than the murder of Jarvis, my foster son," Pfleger said.
"When the world is meeting you for the first time from a dramatization in a sermon that I felt was in the sacredness of a sanctuary, among people who know me, and then find a YouTube that in no way defines the sermon or the message that I preached, nor the person or pastor that I am, it is painful.
"It is also grieving to me when a 1.5-minute YouTube video becomes the headlines across the world of papers and news stations, while the tragedy and death of earthquakes, cyclones and tornadoes that have taken the lives of people around this world, while the killing of our children across this country and here in Chicago and the easy access to guns have become stories on page 18 and 19, and while people are at my front door, looking for food to eat or gas to get to work, indeed that grieves me," he said.
Perhaps, if by apology they meant this definition: "a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine."
Actually, it was more "victimology" than apology by any definition. Poor Father Pfleger.
UPDATE: One last thought. Enough with the "woe is me; I received umpteen death threats and scores of hate-emails" routine.
If you make it into the public eye, inevitably, there is going to be some loon someplace sitting at his computer feeling brave and anonymous writing some kind of "I'm gonna get you, sucker" note.
Stop crying, Father Pfleger, and take your medicine.
02/06: Just Another CMH
Category: Something Personal
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Monday presented the nation's highest military award to a 19-year-old soldier who died saving the lives of four comrades in Iraq by jumping on a grenade tossed into their military vehicle. The honored soldier, Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis, "gave all for his country," the president said somberly.
This is the fourth Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to an Iraq War hero. They have all been posthumous.
President Bush:
When Ross McGinnis was in kindergarten, the teacher asked him to draw a picture of what he wanted to be when he grew up. He drew a soldier. Today our nation recognizing -- recognizes him as a soldier, and more than that -- because he did far more than his duty. In the words of one of our commanding generals, "Four men are alive because this soldier embodied our Army values and gave his life."
Last Friday, my six-year-old graduated kindergarten in a blue-striped seersucker suit. When asked what he wanted to do when he grew up, he said, "I want to be in the Navy because I love my country." Later that afternoon, per a prior agreement, he was awarded his prized "buzz cut" for the summer.
For those who know me, it will not surprise you to learn that I listened to the story of Ross McGinnis with a lump in my throat.
President Bush:
The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest military distinction. It's given for valor beyond anything that duty could require, or a superior could command. By long tradition, it's presented by the President. For any President, doing so is a high privilege.
Before he entered our country's history, Ross McGinnis came of age in the town of Knox, Pennsylvania. Back home they remember a slender boy with a big heart and a carefree spirit. He was a regular guy. He loved playing basketball. He loved working on cars. He wasn't too wild about schoolwork. (Laughter.) He had a lot of friends and a great sense of humor. In high school and in the Army, Ross became known for his ability to do impersonations. A buddy from boot camp said that Ross was the only man there who could make the drill sergeant laugh. (Laughter.)
Most of all, those who knew Ross McGinnis recall him as a dependable friend and a really good guy. If Ross was your buddy and you needed help or you got in trouble, he'd stick with you and be the one you could count on. One of his friends told a reporter that Ross was the type "who would do anything for anybody."
That element of his character was to make all the difference when Ross McGinnis became a soldier in the Army. One afternoon 18 months ago, Private McGinnis was part of a humvee patrol in a neighborhood of Baghdad. From his position in the gun turret, he noticed a grenade thrown directly at the vehicle. In an instant, the grenade dropped through the gunner's hatch. He shouted a warning to the four men inside. Confined in that tiny space, the soldiers had no chance of escaping the explosion. Private McGinnis could have easily jumped from the humvee and saved himself. Instead he dropped inside, put himself against the grenade, and absorbed the blast with his own body.
By that split-second decision, Private McGinnis lost his own life, and he saved his comrades. One of them was Platoon Sergeant Cedric Thomas, who said this: "He had time to jump out of the truck. He chose not to. He's a hero. He was just an awesome guy." For his actions, Private McGinnis received the Silver Star, a posthumous promotion in rank, and a swift nomination for the Medal of Honor. But it wasn't acclaim or credit that motivated him. Ross's dad has said, "I know medals never crossed his mind. He was always about friendships and relationships. He just took that to the ultimate this time."
God Bless Ross McGinnis. God Bless an America that produces young men such as Ross McGinnis.
President Bush:
The day will come when the mission he served has been completed and the fighting is over, and freedom and security have prevailed. America will never forget those who came forward to bear the battle. America will always honor the name of this brave soldier who gave all for his country, and was taken to rest at age 19.
Fervently do we pray.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Monday presented the nation's highest military award to a 19-year-old soldier who died saving the lives of four comrades in Iraq by jumping on a grenade tossed into their military vehicle. The honored soldier, Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis, "gave all for his country," the president said somberly.
This is the fourth Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to an Iraq War hero. They have all been posthumous.
President Bush:
When Ross McGinnis was in kindergarten, the teacher asked him to draw a picture of what he wanted to be when he grew up. He drew a soldier. Today our nation recognizing -- recognizes him as a soldier, and more than that -- because he did far more than his duty. In the words of one of our commanding generals, "Four men are alive because this soldier embodied our Army values and gave his life."
Last Friday, my six-year-old graduated kindergarten in a blue-striped seersucker suit. When asked what he wanted to do when he grew up, he said, "I want to be in the Navy because I love my country." Later that afternoon, per a prior agreement, he was awarded his prized "buzz cut" for the summer.
For those who know me, it will not surprise you to learn that I listened to the story of Ross McGinnis with a lump in my throat.
President Bush:
The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest military distinction. It's given for valor beyond anything that duty could require, or a superior could command. By long tradition, it's presented by the President. For any President, doing so is a high privilege.
Before he entered our country's history, Ross McGinnis came of age in the town of Knox, Pennsylvania. Back home they remember a slender boy with a big heart and a carefree spirit. He was a regular guy. He loved playing basketball. He loved working on cars. He wasn't too wild about schoolwork. (Laughter.) He had a lot of friends and a great sense of humor. In high school and in the Army, Ross became known for his ability to do impersonations. A buddy from boot camp said that Ross was the only man there who could make the drill sergeant laugh. (Laughter.)
Most of all, those who knew Ross McGinnis recall him as a dependable friend and a really good guy. If Ross was your buddy and you needed help or you got in trouble, he'd stick with you and be the one you could count on. One of his friends told a reporter that Ross was the type "who would do anything for anybody."
That element of his character was to make all the difference when Ross McGinnis became a soldier in the Army. One afternoon 18 months ago, Private McGinnis was part of a humvee patrol in a neighborhood of Baghdad. From his position in the gun turret, he noticed a grenade thrown directly at the vehicle. In an instant, the grenade dropped through the gunner's hatch. He shouted a warning to the four men inside. Confined in that tiny space, the soldiers had no chance of escaping the explosion. Private McGinnis could have easily jumped from the humvee and saved himself. Instead he dropped inside, put himself against the grenade, and absorbed the blast with his own body.
By that split-second decision, Private McGinnis lost his own life, and he saved his comrades. One of them was Platoon Sergeant Cedric Thomas, who said this: "He had time to jump out of the truck. He chose not to. He's a hero. He was just an awesome guy." For his actions, Private McGinnis received the Silver Star, a posthumous promotion in rank, and a swift nomination for the Medal of Honor. But it wasn't acclaim or credit that motivated him. Ross's dad has said, "I know medals never crossed his mind. He was always about friendships and relationships. He just took that to the ultimate this time."
God Bless Ross McGinnis. God Bless an America that produces young men such as Ross McGinnis.
President Bush:
The day will come when the mission he served has been completed and the fighting is over, and freedom and security have prevailed. America will never forget those who came forward to bear the battle. America will always honor the name of this brave soldier who gave all for his country, and was taken to rest at age 19.
Fervently do we pray.
A life-long friend and dedicated reader from Southern California, known on the Bosque Boys as "Football Coach," wrote last week (his thoughts in italics) concerning the ongoing situation with the "Yearning for Zion Ranch" case:
*** It concerns me that a state as Libertarian as Texas took 400+ kids away from their parents because of one phone call and a basic dislike for the lifestyle of the people involved. If that can happen in Texas, what can happen in the Democratic Peoples Republic of California?
Reality Check: the rugged "frontierism" of "libertarian" Texas is mostly myth and memory these days. Big Government in Texas is not so unlike Big Government in California. Perhaps the popularly elected state judiciary has resisted this trend somewhat (in some cases) over the last decade or so--but that has proven anomalous within an otherwise thoroughly modern conception of government within the Lone Star State.
*** While I certainly disagree with their theology and lifestyle, the group appears to be following firmly held religious beliefs. Most of us would agree that polygamy is wrong (ironically however, we’re told that homosexual marriage is OK), but what about other religious parenting issues, such as spanking? Many well-meaning Christians would disagree on the issue, but you can make a pretty strong case from the book of Proverbs that corporal punishment is Biblically mandated.
Excellent point, Coach. The general problem with polygamy, of course, is underage victims forced against their will to submit to unions ordered by church authority. But, in this day and age, how long can folks continue to inveigh against plural marriage for consenting adults?
One other point worth noting: the ACLU has been instrumental in fighting for the rights of these accused and accursed religious "others."
Speaking only for myself, for all their silliness, thank God for the principled atheists at the ACLU.
Note: the latest on the reunification of families from the AP.
*** It concerns me that a state as Libertarian as Texas took 400+ kids away from their parents because of one phone call and a basic dislike for the lifestyle of the people involved. If that can happen in Texas, what can happen in the Democratic Peoples Republic of California?
Reality Check: the rugged "frontierism" of "libertarian" Texas is mostly myth and memory these days. Big Government in Texas is not so unlike Big Government in California. Perhaps the popularly elected state judiciary has resisted this trend somewhat (in some cases) over the last decade or so--but that has proven anomalous within an otherwise thoroughly modern conception of government within the Lone Star State.
*** While I certainly disagree with their theology and lifestyle, the group appears to be following firmly held religious beliefs. Most of us would agree that polygamy is wrong (ironically however, we’re told that homosexual marriage is OK), but what about other religious parenting issues, such as spanking? Many well-meaning Christians would disagree on the issue, but you can make a pretty strong case from the book of Proverbs that corporal punishment is Biblically mandated.
Excellent point, Coach. The general problem with polygamy, of course, is underage victims forced against their will to submit to unions ordered by church authority. But, in this day and age, how long can folks continue to inveigh against plural marriage for consenting adults?
One other point worth noting: the ACLU has been instrumental in fighting for the rights of these accused and accursed religious "others."
Speaking only for myself, for all their silliness, thank God for the principled atheists at the ACLU.
Note: the latest on the reunification of families from the AP.
01/06: A Change We Can Believe In?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Obama resignation letter from Trinity via the Moderate Voice:
May 30, 2008
Dear. Rev. Moss:
We are writing to make official our decision to end our membership at Trinity.
We make this decision with sadness. Trinity was where I found Christ, where we were married and where our children were baptized. We have many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend there and we are proud of the extraordinary good works the church continues to perform throughout the community to help the hungry, the homeless and people in need of medical care.
We also have come to appreciate your ministry and both think you have been, and will be, a wonderful pastor for years to come.
But as you know, our relations with Trinity have been strained by the divisive statements of Rev. Wright, which sharply conflict with our own views.
Our larger concern is that because of my candidacy and membership at Trinity, these controversies have served as an unfortunate distraction for other Trinity members who seek to worship in peace, and have placed you in an untenable position as you establish your own ministry under very difficult circumstances.
Our faith remains strong and we will find another church home for our family. But we also know that faith and prayer are not merely exercises to be discharged for two hours on Sunday. They are and always will be a bulwark for us in our daily lives.
We are grateful for our years as part of the Trinity community, and wish you all the best as you lead the congregation into the future. You, your family and the entire Trinity family will be in thoughts and prayers.
Sincerely,
Michelle Obama
Barack Obama
May 30, 2008
Dear. Rev. Moss:
We are writing to make official our decision to end our membership at Trinity.
We make this decision with sadness. Trinity was where I found Christ, where we were married and where our children were baptized. We have many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend there and we are proud of the extraordinary good works the church continues to perform throughout the community to help the hungry, the homeless and people in need of medical care.
We also have come to appreciate your ministry and both think you have been, and will be, a wonderful pastor for years to come.
But as you know, our relations with Trinity have been strained by the divisive statements of Rev. Wright, which sharply conflict with our own views.
Our larger concern is that because of my candidacy and membership at Trinity, these controversies have served as an unfortunate distraction for other Trinity members who seek to worship in peace, and have placed you in an untenable position as you establish your own ministry under very difficult circumstances.
Our faith remains strong and we will find another church home for our family. But we also know that faith and prayer are not merely exercises to be discharged for two hours on Sunday. They are and always will be a bulwark for us in our daily lives.
We are grateful for our years as part of the Trinity community, and wish you all the best as you lead the congregation into the future. You, your family and the entire Trinity family will be in thoughts and prayers.
Sincerely,
Michelle Obama
Barack Obama
