The Bosque Boys

George Bush:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Barack Obama:

"I resemble that remark."

------

Seriously, what is this argument all about?

Is Obama arguing that he has not promised to negotiate with terrorists and radicals?

Or is he taking issue with the assertion that negotiating with terrorists and radicals equals appeasement?

No matter, give the day to Obama for his clever indignation (with a big assist from the mainstream media and the Democrats in Congress who were also so shocked and offended that an American politician would take internal differences beyond the water's edge).

However, I remain convinced that Obama's anti-war stance is his biggest long-term disadvantage. He is winning daily political battles, but his determination to lose the war in Iraq may be losing him the war in November.

That is, are Americans really prepared to elect a Democratic candidate who has promised to pull-up stakes in Iraq to appease the nut-roots crowd?

Biblical Witness Fellowship, a conservative renewal movement within the extremely liberal United Church of Christ (UCC) has this post that does a good job demonstrating that Jeremiah Wright is not a maverick in the context of Mainline Protestantism. Rather, his positions reflect those taken by the leadership of several liberal and declining denominations.

Small wonder the mainlines have become the sidelined.

The United Methodist Church is a very large and important body of Protestants, with churches scattered all across America. At their recent General Conference, a meeting of leaders that occurs every 4 years, some significant actions were taken. Links and quotations are from the official news site of the UMC.

On homosexuality:

Delegates to the 2008 General Conference on April 30 rejected changes to the United Methodist Social Principles that would have acknowledged that church members disagree on homosexuality.

Delegates instead adopted a minority report that retained language in the denomination’s 2004 Book of Discipline describing homosexual practice as “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

The adopted wording in Paragraph 161G also states that “all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God,” and that United Methodists are to be “welcoming, forgiving and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us.”

The rank-and-file made themselves heard on this issue. Notice that the floor adopted the minority report. Interestingly, the photo accompanying this story shows a picture of weeping delegates whose preference was defeated.

Divestment in Companies Doing Business with Israel:

United Methodists have rejected attempts to have the denomination endorse divestment from some companies that do business in Israel as a way of addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The actions occurred during General Conference, the church’s top legislative body, meeting April 23-May 2 at the Fort Worth Convention Center.

A number of petitions, including five from U.S. annual (regional) conferences, were folded into one petition on "divestment" that called on the denomination’s pension board and finance agency "to review and identify companies that profit from sales of products or services that cause harm to Palestinians and Israelis and begin phased selective divestment from these companies." That petition was rejected May 2 by General Conference delegates as they voted on a special consent calendar.

Support of the People of Tibet, Taiwan, and The Sudan:

United Methodists have officially affirmed support for “the people of Tibet and their struggle for independence and autonomy.”

A new resolution on Sudan called “Sudan: A Call to Compassion and Caring” was part of the consent calendar approved on April 29. It advocates for justice for all Sudanese, calls upon United Methodists “in every country” to encourage their governments to aid development of a more just economic system in the Sudan and asks church members to “examine all methods of protest and solidarity before undertaking them” to ensure that none of their actions cause violence.

Also approved by consent was a petition reaffirming the denomination’s support “of the democratic aspirations and achievements of the people of Taiwan." Church members are encouraged to become educated about contemporary issues related to Taiwan and the “One China” policy and promote the rights of Taiwanese “for stability, security and self-determination of its own status in the family of nations.”

Abortion:

The United Methodist Church will continue to “sit at the table” and retain its 35-year membership with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

In a May 2 vote of 416-384, the 2008 General Conference affirmed continued membership of the denomination’s Board of Church and Society and the Women’s Division of the Board of Global Ministries in the organization.

Notice how close was the vote: if 17 votes out of 800 had changed to pro-life, then the outcome would have differed. Perhaps as the liberal wing declines in numbers, and the conservative wing grows, we can anticipate a different outcome in four years.

For other news articles see here.

Consent of the Governed: R.I.P.

UPDATE:

From the dissent:

The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to this: Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante), they reserve the label “marriage” for opposite-sex legal unions? I must conclude that the answer is no.

. . . .

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

. . . .

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

Tocqueville: Notwithstanding two hundred years of history to the contrary, "we the people" are incapable of governing ourselves humanely, according to this judicial dictatorship.

The Times of India has several stories dealing with the bombings in Jaipur that killed 61 and wounded 218. A group calling itself Indian Mujahideen claimed credit.

Here. Here.

Gateway Pundit has the best round-up of Burma news after the cyclone. Some aid is starting to get in, but the Burmese government's reluctance to admit foreign aid is condemning many, many people to death.

Notice once again that the most effective relief efforts can come from the U.S. military.

As of yesterday, Church World Service, a very fine organization that my denomination channels aid through, was still waiting with supplies on the Thai-Burmese border for permission to cross.

In a healthy country, these men's names would be known and celebrated. Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter and Cpl. Jonathan T. Yale, RIP.

Story.

Thucydides, the ancient Greek writer, reports that at the meeting of representatives from Athens and Melos, the Athenians stated, "But you and we should say what we really think, and aim only at what is possible, for we both alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must."

The ancient Greeks knew, from experience, that dealings between states were based on relative power: the stronger got what they could, the weaker gave up what they must. This relationship between states reflected the drive to power, or will to power, that ever lived in the human breast, ready to grow and flower when circumstances were favorable. Again, Thucydides relates: "For of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a law of their nature wherever they can rule they will. This law was not made by us, and we are not the first who have acted upon it; we did but inherit it, and shall bequeath it to all time, and we know that you and all mankind, if you were as strong as we are, would do as we do."

This conception from the Greeks finds expression in Christian doctrine as the Doctrine of Depravity, or Human Sinfulness. Our fallen natures are sinful, and one expression of innate depravity is the desire to dominate others. Reinhold Niebuhr based his system of Christian Realism on the insight that while grace may permit an individual to repent and restrain himself from self-assertion, a group or a social system such as a nation or a business cannot and will not restrain itself unless forced to. Our Founders understood this human tendency to tyranny, and so tried to protect against it.

It does not seem to me that Barak Obama really gets it, down deep in his heart. He appears to be another Jimmy Carter, thinking that if we are nice to other nations, talk with them, give no offense, then we all can sit down together and sing folk-songs.

Peace through strength, it ever must be, for there is no peace through talk unless supported by might (what the Athenians referred to as necessity or power).

David M. Potter, in his magnum opus, The Impending Crisis, wrote of John Brown:

"If he had been killed [at Harper's Ferry]...[the general public] might quickly have dismissed Brown as a mere desperado. But he was not killed, and he surpassed himself as few men have ever done, in the six weeks that followed. The most striking testimony to his superb behavior was the fact that he extorted the complete admiration of the Virginians. They had regarded all abolitionists as poltroons, but Brown showed a courage which captivated southern devotees of the cult of courage in spite of themselves."

So also has Hillary Clinton won the admiration of her erstwhile (and undoubtedly future) adversaries. As Weekly Standard columnist, Noemie Emery, wrote last week, Hillary has earned an exceedingly strange new respect from conservatives since "March Fourth and long."

The governor of Virginia (quoted in Potter) praised John Brown back then with an encomium that some of us might apply to Hillary's late underdog incarnation:

"...a bundle of the best nerves I ever saw, cut and thrust and bleeding...[s]he is a [wo]man of clear head, of courage, fortitude, and simple ingeniousness. [S]he is cool, collected, and indomitable...."

Of course it goes without saying, like the Virginians of old, none of our new found admiration for her would have deterred us from working with all our vigor toward her metaphorical execution come November. But many of us have sincerely appreciated her gameness in the face of long odds (which is the primary reason why I would like her to make a gracious and honorable exit).

One last thought: it is worth noting, unlike John Brown, the passion of Hillary Clinton will probably not lead to her apotheosis (even among her most stalwart supporters). We are not likely to be singing folk songs about Hillary any time soon.

After spending the last two days and three posts explaining how this race is over, and why Hillary must withdraw, allow me to explain why it goes against her instincts:

1. She thinks she is a better, more-qualified, more electable candidate for president than her opponent. I happen to agree with her.

2. All of her political experience (including the most defining moment in her public life--Bill's impeachment), compels her to trudge on in the face of adversity and full-throated pundits who assert emphatically that she is finished. "Press on," her inner voice must be saying right now. "You can beat these S.O.B.s!"

3. She keeps thinking: "Obama is ripe for the taking. He is weak. People are going to wake up from this "fairy tale." She wants to be the one to pick up the pieces when the illusion comes crashing down.

Once again, for the most part, I happen to agree with her analysis--although this awakening may take years to transpire.

Having said all that, realistically, she cannot spend the next three months (between now and Denver) waiting for a pack of ravenous predators to catch up with her opponent somehow. She cannot win by circling above her prey like a canny vulture awaiting the impending demise of a frail wildebeest who has wandered too close to the lion's den. There is no political future in the vulture strategy. She needed to be the lion to win, but she missed her last chance to be a predator in North Carolina.

She must face this sooner or later.