Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Chinese government has an ongoing espionage action against the U.S. computer infrastructure. The Chinese also may be responsible for two major power failures in our country. Story here. Link from Drudge.
Someone tell me again, why are we trading with China like it is an ally?
Someone tell me again, why are we trading with China like it is an ally?
30/05: Social and National Identity
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
What determines that there is a larger society, rather than merely a collection of competing groups and tribes? What determines the nature of the larger society? Is it possible to have a nation without having a larger society? That is, can one indeed have a nation without a consensus on shared values? To be specific, is multiculturalism a sufficient shared value that will create and sustain a larger culture, or is it a recipe for devolving into a collection of competing groups and tribes?
My favorite Anglican bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali, Pakistani by birth and rearing, moved to Britain due to threats on his life in Pakistan. As an outsider coming into British society, he sees things that those raised as insiders might miss. One of these things is the degree to which British society and the British nation were based on Christianity, and the dissolution of the larger society and nation as Christianity is abandoned for multiculturalism.
Here is his very thoughtful essay that has provoked some predictable response by the usual suspects.
My favorite Anglican bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali, Pakistani by birth and rearing, moved to Britain due to threats on his life in Pakistan. As an outsider coming into British society, he sees things that those raised as insiders might miss. One of these things is the degree to which British society and the British nation were based on Christianity, and the dissolution of the larger society and nation as Christianity is abandoned for multiculturalism.
Here is his very thoughtful essay that has provoked some predictable response by the usual suspects.
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Have you noticed that positive changes in the world often trace back to an individual, or a small group of individuals, who see a need and then respond courageously and compassionately? And, have you noticed that the most effective positive-change agents are almost always private, not governmental? And further, have you noticed that many, many, positive changes in the world have been the result of Christianity?
I would say the world does not need bigger government, but individuals with bigger hearts.
Here is the story of the founder of Save the Children, Eglantyne Jebb, from Brits at Their Best.
I would say the world does not need bigger government, but individuals with bigger hearts.
Here is the story of the founder of Save the Children, Eglantyne Jebb, from Brits at Their Best.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Last of the Few links to this funny but sadly true satirical commentary on our worst current ex-president.
This link is Safe for Work, but not everything on Last of the Few is.
This link is Safe for Work, but not everything on Last of the Few is.
Category: Campaign 2008.13
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This is a devastating ad against Barack Obama:
Vets For Freedom (view here).
Hugh Hewitt is pushing it--and others will too.
Watch it!
We'll see how this plays--but I suspect that this is a moment we may well remember as a turning point.
Vets For Freedom (view here).
Hugh Hewitt is pushing it--and others will too.
Watch it!
We'll see how this plays--but I suspect that this is a moment we may well remember as a turning point.
Category: Campaign 2008.13
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
As we all know, 2008 remains an excellent year to run for president as a Democrat.
Intense George W. Bush fatigue (brought on by an unpopular five-year war with no end in sight and a paralyzing uncertainty concerning the economy) offers a nearly insurmountable advantage in favor of the out-party.
More specifically, the young and compelling Barack Obama will run against an inarticulate presumptive Republican nominee who is seventy-one-years-old and looks every bit his age, who is admittedly inexpert on the economic questions, and who stubbornly (albeit bravely) advocates doggedly pursuing the unpopular war until the mission is accomplished.
I repeat: this is a good year to run as a Democrat.
Even Worse:
1. Knowledgeable pundits have predicted that Obama would receive a tremendous bounce when he finally clinches the nomination. Obama is at that point, and I suspect the big bounce is in the pipeline. Once the polls begin to reflect a double-digit lead for the Democratic candidate, all the bad will be forgotten for a time, and the new storyline will be the impending "rout" on McCain.
2. The national press corps loves Obama; moreover, they are heavily invested in Obama. The newly crowned young lion of liberalism will enjoy protection from the mainstream media from Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November. Don't hold your breath waiting for George Stephanopoulos or any other mainstream newsman to ask any irritating questions of this Democratic nominee during the homestretch.
On the other hand, John McCain will face withering wall-to-wall coverage of every gaffe, potential hypocritical anomaly, and every ache and pain. The media onslaught aimed at McCain is going to be brutal. As I said the other day, the storm of calumnious opprobrium will be intense.
3. McCain may appeal to moderates (or he may not--we will see), but conservatives continue to revile him. Of course, conservatives are much closer to McCain philosophically than Obama--but that may prove irrelevant in the end.
Why?
First, the One Hint of Good News: Because the Democrats have erred so egregiously, Republicans have a chance to elect John McCain. Barack Obama is painfully naive about the world and ill-prepared for the role of commander-in-chief (and I am not really talking about the "youth and inexperience" issue). George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, in their eighties, are painfully naive and ill-prepared to serve as president of the United States.
However, Obama's lack of foreign policy gravitas translates into merely a slim chance for John McCain. Why so slim? Realistically and historically, one cannot count on the American electorate to take that crucial fact into primary consideration.
The other BIG albeit unheralded problem: mainstream conservatism is hopelessly divided over foreign policy, or, more precisely, our predicament in Iraq. A considerable contingent of rock-ribbed conservatives see the Bush "adventure" in the Middle East as pure folly (read this essay by the late Bill Buckley for an example).
Conservatives are uneasy with McCain for myriad reasons. Even worse, the one element that might unify conservatism, a foreign policy exigency, is, in this instance, potentially more divisive than politically beneficial.
While McCain is right on Iraq in my view--and Barack is dreadfully silly--not all my conservative brethren agree. Iraq is not akin to the Cold War in which religious conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians were so energized in pursuit of a common enemy that they could lay down their divisions and rally around the flag.
Too many conservatives do not see the continuation of our mission in Iraq as absolutely essential to our vital national interests. For that reason more than any other, a long General Election night for the GOP remains our most likely scenario.
Intense George W. Bush fatigue (brought on by an unpopular five-year war with no end in sight and a paralyzing uncertainty concerning the economy) offers a nearly insurmountable advantage in favor of the out-party.
More specifically, the young and compelling Barack Obama will run against an inarticulate presumptive Republican nominee who is seventy-one-years-old and looks every bit his age, who is admittedly inexpert on the economic questions, and who stubbornly (albeit bravely) advocates doggedly pursuing the unpopular war until the mission is accomplished.
I repeat: this is a good year to run as a Democrat.
Even Worse:
1. Knowledgeable pundits have predicted that Obama would receive a tremendous bounce when he finally clinches the nomination. Obama is at that point, and I suspect the big bounce is in the pipeline. Once the polls begin to reflect a double-digit lead for the Democratic candidate, all the bad will be forgotten for a time, and the new storyline will be the impending "rout" on McCain.
2. The national press corps loves Obama; moreover, they are heavily invested in Obama. The newly crowned young lion of liberalism will enjoy protection from the mainstream media from Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November. Don't hold your breath waiting for George Stephanopoulos or any other mainstream newsman to ask any irritating questions of this Democratic nominee during the homestretch.
On the other hand, John McCain will face withering wall-to-wall coverage of every gaffe, potential hypocritical anomaly, and every ache and pain. The media onslaught aimed at McCain is going to be brutal. As I said the other day, the storm of calumnious opprobrium will be intense.
3. McCain may appeal to moderates (or he may not--we will see), but conservatives continue to revile him. Of course, conservatives are much closer to McCain philosophically than Obama--but that may prove irrelevant in the end.
Why?
First, the One Hint of Good News: Because the Democrats have erred so egregiously, Republicans have a chance to elect John McCain. Barack Obama is painfully naive about the world and ill-prepared for the role of commander-in-chief (and I am not really talking about the "youth and inexperience" issue). George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, in their eighties, are painfully naive and ill-prepared to serve as president of the United States.
However, Obama's lack of foreign policy gravitas translates into merely a slim chance for John McCain. Why so slim? Realistically and historically, one cannot count on the American electorate to take that crucial fact into primary consideration.
The other BIG albeit unheralded problem: mainstream conservatism is hopelessly divided over foreign policy, or, more precisely, our predicament in Iraq. A considerable contingent of rock-ribbed conservatives see the Bush "adventure" in the Middle East as pure folly (read this essay by the late Bill Buckley for an example).
Conservatives are uneasy with McCain for myriad reasons. Even worse, the one element that might unify conservatism, a foreign policy exigency, is, in this instance, potentially more divisive than politically beneficial.
While McCain is right on Iraq in my view--and Barack is dreadfully silly--not all my conservative brethren agree. Iraq is not akin to the Cold War in which religious conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians were so energized in pursuit of a common enemy that they could lay down their divisions and rally around the flag.
Too many conservatives do not see the continuation of our mission in Iraq as absolutely essential to our vital national interests. For that reason more than any other, a long General Election night for the GOP remains our most likely scenario.
Does Tom Coburn believe his own words when he says "John McCain, for all his faults, is the one Republican candidate who can lead us through our wilderness"? Of course, McCain is the only Republican candidate, so Coburn's words make little sense on their face, and Coburn does not say that McCain is the only Republican "who can lead us." To say that McCain is "the only Republican candidate who can..." is an embarrassing inanity.
Anyway, others, including Coburn, would lead better. In effect, Coburn is saying "our guy, with big and ugly warts and whom none of us prefer, is still somewhat better than their guy." An uninspiring announcement. Coburn is on the VP list for McCain (probably won't and shouldn't get the nod because of the small state and a state already in the red and because two senators is not a good idea). Maybe he is just dutifully pitching in and trying to remind McCain of a few things. But the word "remind" suggests that McCain once knew these things -- a dubious proposition. McCain is not a conservative, he is an opportunist. McCain does not perceive principles, he perceives moments.
Anyway, others, including Coburn, would lead better. In effect, Coburn is saying "our guy, with big and ugly warts and whom none of us prefer, is still somewhat better than their guy." An uninspiring announcement. Coburn is on the VP list for McCain (probably won't and shouldn't get the nod because of the small state and a state already in the red and because two senators is not a good idea). Maybe he is just dutifully pitching in and trying to remind McCain of a few things. But the word "remind" suggests that McCain once knew these things -- a dubious proposition. McCain is not a conservative, he is an opportunist. McCain does not perceive principles, he perceives moments.
One of my friends and former teachers, Gregg Frazer, shared with me this friendly response to a local Los Angeles-area columnist (a proudly liberal Democrat) with whom he is acquainted. Frazer's email offers a cogent summary of arguments against the recent California Supreme Court ruling in re MARRIAGE CASES.
Gregg Frazer is Professor of Political Studies at the Master's College.
1) Since marriage is NOT a CIVIL right, but a POLITICAL right (privilege granted by the govt., like driving) – how is it a civil rights issue? If it’s a civil right, it belongs to all persons and my 12-year old would have it and so would 2-year olds. Also, if it were a civil right, you could compel someone to marry you lest you be denied a civil right. I challenge to show where in the California – or U.S., for that matter – Constitution marriage is listed/identified as a civil right. One of the myriad of problems in our society is the claim that anything anyone wants to do is a “civil right.” Where do I sign up to claim that owning a Mercedes is a civil right – after all, some people get to do it!
Gregg Frazer is Professor of Political Studies at the Master's College.
1) Since marriage is NOT a CIVIL right, but a POLITICAL right (privilege granted by the govt., like driving) – how is it a civil rights issue? If it’s a civil right, it belongs to all persons and my 12-year old would have it and so would 2-year olds. Also, if it were a civil right, you could compel someone to marry you lest you be denied a civil right. I challenge to show where in the California – or U.S., for that matter – Constitution marriage is listed/identified as a civil right. One of the myriad of problems in our society is the claim that anything anyone wants to do is a “civil right.” Where do I sign up to claim that owning a Mercedes is a civil right – after all, some people get to do it!
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I hear people talkin' bad,
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harpin' on the wars we fight,
An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides,
An' standin' up for things they believe in.
When they're runnin' down my country, man,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
First, in pursuit of full disclosure and intellectual honesty, please accept this relevant and noteworthy caveat:
Much has changed for Merle Haggard since 1970. In his dotage, the great voice of the common man in country music has argued for the impeachment of George Bush, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2007, and wrote a song a few years back advocating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Read my shoulder shrug and perplexed expression. But, oh well, God bless Merle and an America where one can switch sides and stand up for things that one believes in.
Notwithstanding, Merle's simple and powerful poetry from nearly four decades ago, generally, continues to resonate with me much more than his current political viewpoints.
Why?
I continue to meet too many Americans who gleefully exhibit complete disdain for our national heritage, evincing absolutely no perceptible appreciation for the good fortune of their birthplace, even as they enjoy the myriad privileges and blessings associated with American citizenship.
They love our milk an' honey,
But they preach about some other way of livin'.
When they're runnin' down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Jeremiah Wright: there is no dastardly act so heinous of which he could not believe the American government capable.
Michelle Obama: she finds nothing in our history of which she is personally proud.
Why is this a problem?
Quite often, we are who we say we are and believe we are. Of course, a healthy amount of skepticism regarding governments implemented and executed by the sons of Adam is a wise precaution--but rank and unadulterated cynicism produces a whole array of deleterious ramifications.
The American story is one in which we have consistently transcended our imperfections by working toward American ideals as expressed in our founding documents and "glorious" history. Over time, we have consistently outperformed reasonable human expectations, in part, because we have striven to be great and good. In large part, we believed that our heroic past demanded a heroic present as merely fair recompense for our birthright seeded with endless possibility. To whom much is given much is expected.
However, modern man sees the past as corrupt. Heroes are for suckers. George Washington was a slaveholder. Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. Andrew Jackson was a racist and a genocidal monster. Abraham Lincoln was a clever political manipulator.
In other words, our past was just as degenerate as our present. In fact, our moral impotence is actually more honest (from our culturally relative perspective) than the integrity and bravery of our ancestors, mustered only to propitiate a ridiculously disingenuous corporate ethos. That is, our predecessors were only heroic because their history had misled them into believing that they were somehow linked by "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone," which somehow required superhuman sacrifice and subordination of self for the good of a grateful and worthy nation.
They were fools--but we know the truth.
An' I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on bein' free.
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harpin' on the wars we fight,
An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides,
An' standin' up for things they believe in.
When they're runnin' down my country, man,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
First, in pursuit of full disclosure and intellectual honesty, please accept this relevant and noteworthy caveat:
Much has changed for Merle Haggard since 1970. In his dotage, the great voice of the common man in country music has argued for the impeachment of George Bush, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2007, and wrote a song a few years back advocating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Read my shoulder shrug and perplexed expression. But, oh well, God bless Merle and an America where one can switch sides and stand up for things that one believes in.
Notwithstanding, Merle's simple and powerful poetry from nearly four decades ago, generally, continues to resonate with me much more than his current political viewpoints.
Why?
I continue to meet too many Americans who gleefully exhibit complete disdain for our national heritage, evincing absolutely no perceptible appreciation for the good fortune of their birthplace, even as they enjoy the myriad privileges and blessings associated with American citizenship.
They love our milk an' honey,
But they preach about some other way of livin'.
When they're runnin' down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Jeremiah Wright: there is no dastardly act so heinous of which he could not believe the American government capable.
Michelle Obama: she finds nothing in our history of which she is personally proud.
Why is this a problem?
Quite often, we are who we say we are and believe we are. Of course, a healthy amount of skepticism regarding governments implemented and executed by the sons of Adam is a wise precaution--but rank and unadulterated cynicism produces a whole array of deleterious ramifications.
The American story is one in which we have consistently transcended our imperfections by working toward American ideals as expressed in our founding documents and "glorious" history. Over time, we have consistently outperformed reasonable human expectations, in part, because we have striven to be great and good. In large part, we believed that our heroic past demanded a heroic present as merely fair recompense for our birthright seeded with endless possibility. To whom much is given much is expected.
However, modern man sees the past as corrupt. Heroes are for suckers. George Washington was a slaveholder. Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. Andrew Jackson was a racist and a genocidal monster. Abraham Lincoln was a clever political manipulator.
In other words, our past was just as degenerate as our present. In fact, our moral impotence is actually more honest (from our culturally relative perspective) than the integrity and bravery of our ancestors, mustered only to propitiate a ridiculously disingenuous corporate ethos. That is, our predecessors were only heroic because their history had misled them into believing that they were somehow linked by "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone," which somehow required superhuman sacrifice and subordination of self for the good of a grateful and worthy nation.
They were fools--but we know the truth.
An' I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on bein' free.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!
Down went the gunner, a bullet was his fate
Down went the gunner, then the gunners mate
Up jumped the sky pilot, gave the boys a look
And manned the gun himself as he laid aside The Book, shouting:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
Praise the Lord and swing into position!
Can't afford to sit around and wishin'
Praise the Lord we're all between perdition
and the deep blue sea!
Yes the sky pilot said it
You've got to give him credit
for a son - of - gun - of - a - gunner was he,
Shouting:
Praise the Lord we're on a mighty mission!
All aboard, we're not a - goin' fishin;
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" relates the partly true story of a chaplain ("sky pilot") and his reaction to Pearl Harbor. The song was a huge pop hit for Kay Keyser and his orchestra in late 1942. For a revealing window into our current sensibilities, view this You Tube video (with the actual music as sarcastic background to some classic conservative baiting) and then read the accompanying discussion (from the beginning).
-----------
One other hit song from the era (#1 in 1943):
When The Lights Go On Again All Over The World
Note: In truth, unlike 1943, only a small slice of America is actually at war today (the rest of us are drafting off the heroic sacrifice of a select few stalwart souls). For all those Americans on their third and fourth tours of duty, and all the families waiting at home, our sincere thanks. This song is dedicated to you.
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the boys are home again all over the world
And rain or snow is all that may fall from the skies above
A kiss won't mean "goodbye" but "Hello to love"
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the ships will sail again all over the world
Then we'll have time for things like wedding rings
and free hearts will sing
When the lights go on again all over the world
One last thought, FYI: The number one song again this week (three weeks running) is “Lollipop” by Lil’ Wayne: “She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick Like a lollipop; She lick Me Like a lollipop….”
Unfortunately there is much much more to “Lollipop.”
Remember the bad old days when we sang silly songs that assumed God was on our side in a just war against evil doers? Thank goodness we have elevated our culture above that brand of provincialism.
Down went the gunner, a bullet was his fate
Down went the gunner, then the gunners mate
Up jumped the sky pilot, gave the boys a look
And manned the gun himself as he laid aside The Book, shouting:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
Praise the Lord and swing into position!
Can't afford to sit around and wishin'
Praise the Lord we're all between perdition
and the deep blue sea!
Yes the sky pilot said it
You've got to give him credit
for a son - of - gun - of - a - gunner was he,
Shouting:
Praise the Lord we're on a mighty mission!
All aboard, we're not a - goin' fishin;
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free!
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" relates the partly true story of a chaplain ("sky pilot") and his reaction to Pearl Harbor. The song was a huge pop hit for Kay Keyser and his orchestra in late 1942. For a revealing window into our current sensibilities, view this You Tube video (with the actual music as sarcastic background to some classic conservative baiting) and then read the accompanying discussion (from the beginning).
-----------
One other hit song from the era (#1 in 1943):
When The Lights Go On Again All Over The World
Note: In truth, unlike 1943, only a small slice of America is actually at war today (the rest of us are drafting off the heroic sacrifice of a select few stalwart souls). For all those Americans on their third and fourth tours of duty, and all the families waiting at home, our sincere thanks. This song is dedicated to you.
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the boys are home again all over the world
And rain or snow is all that may fall from the skies above
A kiss won't mean "goodbye" but "Hello to love"
When the lights go on again all over the world
And the ships will sail again all over the world
Then we'll have time for things like wedding rings
and free hearts will sing
When the lights go on again all over the world
One last thought, FYI: The number one song again this week (three weeks running) is “Lollipop” by Lil’ Wayne: “She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick me Like a lollipop; She she lick Like a lollipop; She lick Me Like a lollipop….”
Unfortunately there is much much more to “Lollipop.”
Remember the bad old days when we sang silly songs that assumed God was on our side in a just war against evil doers? Thank goodness we have elevated our culture above that brand of provincialism.
