The Bosque Boys

Two stories recently illustrate once again that our nation differs from many others.

This report of a poll taken on knowledge of the Bible, Bible reading habits, church attendance, and prayer showed that Americans top Europeans by quite a bit in all categories except church attendance. Poles topped Americans 91% to 77%.

And this news shared by Brits at Their Best (scroll down) about a recent BBC article that reported Britains traveling or living in the U.S. found our country safer and calmer than Great Britain. The BBC mentioned guns and less public drunkeness as reasons, Brits at Their Best also suggested Christianity.

Even as we speak, Reverend Jeremiah Wright is right now happily embracing the opportunity at the National Press Club to indict himself in an extremely public forum.

UPDATE: the program has concluded. The National Press Club site, dedicated to this morning's event (webcast and transcript) here.

In brief, as I suspected, this venue is proving much too much of a temptation to accurately articulate his worldview.

Barack Obama must be beside himself watching this.

Much more later from all quarters (including this one) in the days to come...

Brilliant political satire.

Last night as I was setting our clock radio, I caught these words from Dr. Dean Edell over WBAP Dallas/Ft. Worth. He was commenting on something the pope said about science, and made this statement (close to a quote, but maybe not exact) : science deals with things that are real, religion deals with faith. Let's think about this assertion.

First, science deals with things that are real. Leaving aside the fact that for a time science dealt with "ether" rather than a vacuum between planets and stars, he seems to imply that everything real can be dealt with by science. Really? Science can deal with what our senses can perceive directly or indirectly, and our minds comprehend and theorize about. But is that all there is? In other words, it is a statement of faith to believe that there is nothing real beyond what science can deal with. A challenge: prove, by scientific method, that there is nothing more than what science can deal with. Can't be done. A good scientist who understands the philosophy of science would not claim that all of reality can be comprehended by science.

Second, religion deals with faith. Yes it does. But, religions make truth claims. In so doing, religions make claims about reality. Now this reality may or may not concern things that science also can investigate, but nonetheless, statements are made as facts, not simply as opinions. And who said that science is the only allowable method of checking truth claims?

As for what the Pope said, I am not sure what Dr. Edell referred to. Perhaps some of the critiques of science made by Benedict XVI, the philospher-bishop, such as this from his 2007 encyclical In Hope (in extended section. Or, more probably this address.

» Read More

Friday morning Tocqueville pointed us to the most recent Peggy Noonan column, which asserted "confusion . . . followed by frustration . . . has turned into resentment" for President Bush, and not just among Beltway sharpies, but among the plain folks in the heart of Texas as well.

Today (Saturday) the Okie Gardener directed us to Scott Johnson of Powerline and his excellent retort: "Season of the Witch."

In light of this conversation, I am exercising my right to revise and extend my original comments from Friday on this topic:

Dateline: Waco, Texas

I stand by my love for Peggy Noonan. Many years ago the Gardener called her a national treasure. I agree wholeheartedly.

And I like the first two sections of her column: 1) frustrating procedures at the airports; and 2) Obama's problems with Middle America,

but the assertion in re Texans and Bush is balderdash.

Noonan: the people of Lubbock, Texas, "the heart of Texas conservatism...dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it."

Translation: "Peggy Noonan dislikes George Bush. He has lost her."

Ms. Noonan (God bless her) has been writing this same essay for two years now.

Here is what I see on the ground in the Waco, Texas (the true HOT):

Texans who are predisposed to like Bush and Republicans continue to admire Bush (albeit more discreetly, perhaps, than they once did).

Texans who are predisposed to hate Bush and all Republicans are much more empowered by the polls and the media to trash Bush in a louder more public way.

Pure Speculation: if Texans had another opportunity to vote for Bush in 2008 for president against Hillary, Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, or even Bill Clinton, George Bush would garner 60-plus percent of the vote once again.

As for what Ms. Noonan (God bless her) purportedly sees, sometimes "a woman sees what she wants to see and disregards the rest."

You can't just fly in someplace, stay the night, give a speech, and purport to tell me what the folks of that particular hamlet "really think."

Also, as evidence buttressing her point, Noonan relates that her audiences don't challenge her on her Bush-bashing. I have the same experience when I say negative things about the President: a sheepish silence. However, if you look out and say, "but, you know, I still like the guy," you will see a lot (A LOT) of relieved faces and knowing smiles from people who want to tell you that they still like him too.

Is George W. Bush a classic conservative? No. Has he made a ten-gallon hat full of bonehead errors? Yes. Having said that, who was the conservative option in 2000? It is a stumper. Answer: the same candidate who was the conservative option in 2008. Nobody. Do any of us seriously believe that we are not infinitely better off with our current president than with the actual alternatives to George Bush in 2000 and 2004: Al Gore and John Kerry?

You want a real conservative? Go get one elected (you will need to find one first). But until then, show some backbone and be part of the solution. Everybody loves a winner. But sometimes you need to back a flawed but well-intentioned man doing his level best in a damned-near impossible situation--even if it is unpopular.

Infidel Bloggers Alliance has a great post by Mary Graybar with comments. (scroll down the page to find it) Worth reading. As things are now going, Obama will not even begin to keep the New Deal coalition together.

To go to the original essay, here in Townhall.

Friday night (April 25), I watched the Bill Moyers-Jeremiah Wright interview on PBS in full. A Few Quick Thoughts on the spectacle:

1. Evidently, Wright's appearance on Bill Moyer's Journal is only the beginning. Is this charm offensive part of a coordinated plan devised by, or cleared through, the Obama Campaign? If so, they must see themselves in a desperate place, for this is a high-risk gambit (if Team Obama is not behind this Wright roll-out, they must be fit to be tied). But my guess is that there is some coordination.

Somewhere, someone made a decision to explain (and justify) Reverend Wright in the "prophetic" tradition of American Christianity. Although I happen to think that argument has a trace of validity, I am convinced that the project to explicate this tradition to the electorate in the midst of a presidential campaign is much too ambitious. Even more problematic, the complicated person and ministry of Reverend Wright seems to go well beyond that not-so-simple framework.

2. Staged as an erudite conversation between two American intellectuals, Wright certainly found Bill Moyers Journal a friendly venue to begin his national crusade to redeem his image. The Reverend struck a toned-down pose, although he could not seem to help himself when he fell into some preacher-type mimicry when deriding some of his (and Barack Obama's) less enlightened critics. But mostly Wright looked grandfatherly, scholarly, buttoned-down and close-cropped (even his signature chin whiskers were so closely trimmed as to be nearly invisible). He was the picture of a reasonable and not-at-all frightening man.

3. Of course, no one will be surprised that Moyers was the perfect shill: asking presumably "tough questions" while subtly framing them with friendly assumptions.

4. Nevertheless, even with every advantage that Bill Moyers and PBS could project upon the Reverend, he still came up a bit short. There was still something not-quite-right about the Prophet Jeremiah. Almost every question and answer from this hour of discussion (the transcript in full here) provides a problematic window into the inner workings of Barack Obama's minister, his church, and the religious and political culture he inhabited for twenty years. I predict that the pastor's defense of Louis Farrakhan will draw a lot of attention. Leaving that rich soil to others, I will concentrate for a moment on a less obvious statement chock-full of revealing assumptions.

Consider this telling exchange:

BILL MOYERS: What does it say to you that millions [of] Americans, according to polls, still think Barack Obama is a Muslim?

REVEREND WRIGHT: It says to me that corporate media and miseducation or misinformation or disinformation, I think we started calling it during the Nixon years, still reigns supreme. Thirty some percent of Americans still think there are weapons of mass destruction. That you tell a lie long enough that people start believing it. What does the media do? "Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein. It sounds like Osama, Obama. That Arabic is a language. So that's why many people still think he's a Muslim. He went to a madrasah. What's a madrasah? I don't know, but I know it was one of those Muslim schools that teaches terrorism. The kind of I don't want to think, just tell me what to think mentality is why so many Americans still think that.

1. As for the Bill Moyers question, see "number three" above.

2. The "corporate media" as an agent of "miseducation or misinformation or disinformation."

Only "whackadoodles" (see the transcript for the joke) say "corporate media." Why? It takes a nearly lethal level of paranoia to see the mainstream media as an intentional instrument to keep the black man (or the brown man or the gentile man or the Arab man) down.

The fact that newsrooms are owned by big corporations is merely a convenient but irrelevant distraction. There has always been a tension between news divisions and corporate--and news has traditionally won out. We have talked about the mainstream media at length here, but in a nutshell the national press corps leans liberal, metropolitan, and "tolerant" in worldview. In general, they are elitist antiheroes. The mainstream media en masse tends to be incredibly skeptical about corporate America and any other institution that connotes conservative values, and the press corps carries a collective bias toward exposing perceived injustices against the lowly, improprieties on the part of the powerful, and scandals among the well-heeled.

Of course, the mainstream media is an agent of "miseducation or misinformation or disinformation," which is unfortunate and invidious, but the tragedy of our modern world is much broader than Reverend Wright seems to understand and much less conspiratorial. True, we are in a mess--but our serious dilemma is not the product of Nixonian-like (whatever that really means) collusion between the government and the corporations to keep us ill-informed and compliant.

3. "What does the media do? "'Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein.'"

Say What? What TV has this guy been watching? One of the most amazing stories of this election has actually been the vigilance with which the mainstream media has carefully avoided mentioning Barack Obama's middle name. Using his middle name somehow equals racism and dirty politics in this election cycle. This statement gets to the state of mind of Wright, viewing all evidence through a prism of predetermined conclusions.

4. "So that's why many people still think he's a Muslim. He went to a madrasah. What's a madrasah? I don't know, [affected voice] but I know it was one of those Muslim schools that teaches terrorism [end of mimicry]. The kind of I don't want to think, just tell me what to think mentality is why so many Americans still think that."

Americans are dumb and easily deceived.

In essence, on display in that last statement, Wright combines the scary paranoid style of American radicalism with the offensive patronizing style of the American intelligentsia. Not an appealing "two-for."

What's ahead? My guess is that his stand-up gig at the National Press Club on Monday and his upcoming speaking engagement at the NAACP (where they are going to expect the preacher) gets even worse.

What are these guys thinking?

Don't miss Peggy Noonan today:

"In Lubbock, Texas – Lubbock Comma Texas, the heart of Texas conservatism – they dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it. Confusion has been followed by frustration has turned into resentment, and this is huge. Everyone knows the president's poll numbers are at historic lows, but if he is over in Lubbock, there is no place in this country that likes him. I made a speech and moved around and I was tough on him and no one – not one – defended or disagreed. I did the same in North Carolina recently, and again no defenders. I did the same in Fresno, Calif., and no defenders, not one.

He has left on-the-ground conservatives – the local right-winger, the town intellectual reading Burke and Kirk, the old Reagan committeewoman – feeling undefended, unrepresented and alone.

This will have impact down the road.

I finally understand the party nostalgia for Reagan. Everyone speaks of him now, but it wasn't that way in 2000, or 1992, or 1996, or even '04.

I think it is a manifestation of dislike for and disappointment in Mr. Bush. It is a turning away that is a turning back. It is a looking back to conservatism when conservatism was clear, knew what it was, was grounded in the facts of the world."

UPDATE: See also The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush (from 2004).

From the Sidney Morning Herald, observing ANZAC Day. Hats off to our allies in every war we have fought since WW1.

The newly elected Maoist government of Nepal is talking about banning Nepalese mercenaries from serving abroad. If this policy becomes law, we may see the end of the legendary Gurkha fighters in the British and Indian armies. Full story from The Times of India.