The Bosque Boys

For those of you committed to the idea of complete moral relativism, that every culture and society is equally valid, and that no one culture or person has a priviliged position from which to criticize another, please read this article on the reconstruction of the records of the Stasi, the East German secret police. Then answer this question: if no society is superior to any other society, would you be happy living in pre-fall East Germany?

Most of the records were recovered intact by German citizens after the fall of the communist regime. But, during the final chaotic months, the secret police managed to shred about 5% of the records; and when the shredder motors burned out, they ripped files up by hand. Given Teutonic order and logic, one can assume that this 5% chosen for destruction first may be especially damning. Today the hand-ripped files are being pieced together, and now computer software has been developed to aid the recovery.

But some of it wasn't. And some of it ... Poppe doesn't know. No one does. Because before it was disbanded, the Stasi shredded or ripped up about 5 percent of its files. That might not sound like much, but the agency had generated perhaps more paper than any other bureaucracy in history — possibly a billion pages of surveillance records, informant accounting, reports on espionage, analyses of foreign press, personnel records, and useless minutiae. There's a record for every time anyone drove across the border.

In the chaos of the days leading up to the actual destruction of the wall and the fall of East Germany's communist government, frantic Stasi agents sent trucks full of documents to the Papierwolfs and Reisswolfs — literally "paper-wolves" and "rip-wolves," German for shredders. As pressure mounted, agents turned to office shredders, and when the motors burned out, they started tearing pages by hand — 45 million of them, ripped into approximately 600 million scraps of paper
. . .
As the enforcement arm of the German Democratic Republic's Communist Party, the Stasi at its height in 1989 employed 91,000 people to watch a country of 16.4 million. A sprawling bureaucracy almost three times the size of Hitler's Gestapo was spying on a population a quarter that of Nazi Germany.

Part of an Evil Empire indeed.

Link from Instapundit.

Dick Morris has it right, essentially, in his latest column:

Clinton Will Win the Nomination by Losing S.C.

Old News: Dick Morris is a hack; that is, he has an uncanny sense for getting things right in the present (what is happening on the ground somewhere today), but he is usually completely misguided in the long term. Hillary was unstoppable until Hillary was finished; now, evidently, Hillary has won the nomination with a clever plan to take advantage of race in this campaign.

One other note: Morris views the world through a deep visceral hatred for the Clintons (especially Hillary).

One last shot: in a year in which the smartest thing I have said all season is "nobody knows anything," it is hard to take a pundit seriously who shamelessly markets his ability to "know all the answers."

Having said that, his thesis today is a near-bullseye.

Hillary will lose South Carolina in a big way as a result of a massive black vote for Obama, which will forever shatter Obama's aura of racial transcendence.

That is correct.

We love Obama because he represents a bridge to a future age in which we will realize the dream of a race-blind society. Although this truly is a contradiction-laden "fairy tale," we desperately want to elect this charismatic African American on the basis of his intellect and character. More than anything else, his ability to provide racial redemption is the foundation for his message of hope.

What Morris so shrewdly detects is the fragility of that political currency. Or, as Margaret Carlson wrote last week, when she saw Al Sharpton on TV defending Barack Obama, she "realized that the Clintons had done what they needed to do to stop Obama's historic surge in its tracks."

A racial division in this contest equals the end of the fantasy.

What Morris and Carlson both exaggerate is the conspiratorial character this latest development in a thoroughly wacky race. I am convinced that the Clintons optimistically strategized at some point that they might actually win the African American vote in South Carolina, casting Obama as not nearly as black as Bill. This would have worked just fine in their big picture. A win is always better than a loss.

However, Obama's viability awakened a race pride in African Americans all over the nation. No problem. Plan B--and I am guessing this idea come on the fly--make Obama run on race. Plan B was helped by Team Obama's lack of foresight in attacking Lyndon Johnson.

In truth, you can believe LBJ was instrumental to civil rights and not be racist, the Bill "fairy tale" remark was taken out of context, and the "moratorium" on discussing Obama's admitted cocaine use is evidence of preferential treatment based on race--not the other way around.

Team Obama stepped into a punch on this one. They needed to fight the perfect fight to win, and they made a mistake. Only time will tell if Obama can overcome the error.

Fred is out. A post mortem.

1. Fred was arguably the best candidate--but he ran the worst campaign.

2. There was always an uncomfortable paradox in my prediction that Mrs. Clinton would/will prevail ultimately in the Democratic canvass, which I base(d) on her superior organization, extensive and meticulous pre-planning, financial advantage, and her prodigious will to win, while at the same time I expected Fred Thompson to emerge victorious on the GOP side, even as he offered the worst organization, an almost spontaneous decision to seek the office, a dismal financial foundation, and an eighteenth-century-style disinterest in running.

3. Why my erroneous hunch that Fred could pull it off? I figured Fred had a chance based on the peculiar make-up of the Republican campaign; that is, since all the GOP contenders arrived seriously flawed, the race was always (and still is, most likely) vulnerable to a late-arriving charismatic candidate espousing an enticing mix of confidence, fresh policy ideas, and conservative orthodoxy.

4. Although I wrote that South Carolina was "Fred's Last Stand," in truth, this campaign remains so loony that nothing really necessitates that Fred exit at this moment. But he obviously wants out--and that is that. You can lead a horse to water--but you cannot make him run...

5. What now? McCain or Romney? Or someone else? Is there anyone else? Fred staying in for a longer run would have done more toward keeping things unpredictable, further complicating the drive to amass a majority of delegates. With Fred gone, he increases the chances of one candidate eventually emerging as the winner before the Republican convention. Is this good? The punditry declares that a deadlocked convention gives the Democrats an advantage. I am not sure about that.

6. Perhaps a contested convention would increase interest in the Republican spectacle, offering a platform for whomever might rise from the ashes of Minneapolis. A someone who might not be a currently declared candidate. A dark horse perhaps? Who knows? Moreover, a new candidate appearing in late summer would scramble the opposition research machine and might actually excite the public's short attention span, which, by Labor Day, will undoubtedly see Obama as the familiar and be looking for something new by then.

The wildest possibility: Fred emerges as a compromise choice in a deadlocked convention (with Newt Gingrich as the VP).

7. Back to reality: with Fred out, look for the rest of conservative orthodoxy to reluctantly line up behind Romney, setting up the battle royale between the McCain insurgents and the forces of the neo-traditional Rush Limbaugh wing of the party.

PS After his loss in South Carolina, seemingly, finally Huckabee should be "Hucka-was."

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, long has been a stronghold of the Presbyterian Church, as has western Pennsylvania in general.

The troubles of the national denomination over issues such as recognition of same-sex practice are affecting congregations withing the Presbyterian heartland.
This article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review online:

The congregation of the largest church in the Pittsburgh Presbytery voted overwhelmingly Sunday to split with the national church and join a smaller, more conservative Presbyterian denomination.

The Mainline Denominations continue their move to the sideline.

This article from Christianity Today on the growing strength of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention, especially in the seminaries.

Calvinism is not new for the SBC. Baptists in America root back to the Particular Baptists of England. The Philadelphia Confession, the statement of faith of the largest and most influential Baptist association in the colonies, is a Baptist descendent of the Westminister Confession. Sometime in the 1830s-1850s, Calvinism gradually lost its grip on the majority of Baptists in the United States. It is not accidental that the first major split among colonial Baptists resulted in the formation of the Free Will Baptists, taking their name from their rejection of the dominant Calvinism of their fellow churches.

Calvinism always will be attractive to evangelicals looking for a comprehensive world-and-life view. Protestantism has generated few systems of thought that can comprehend science, philosophy, government, etc. to compete with Roman Catholic, especially Thomistic teaching. Calvinism is the most comprehensive system of Protestantism.

LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL
April 16, 1963

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

------- *AUTHOR'S NOTE: This response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama (Bishop C. C. J. Carpenter, Bishop Joseph A. Durick, Rabbi Hilton L. Grafman, Bishop Paul Hardin, Bishop Holan B. Harmon, the Reverend George M. Murray. the Reverend Edward V. Ramage and the Reverend Earl Stallings) was composed under somewhat constricting circumstance. Begun on the margins of the newspaper in which the statement appeared while I was in jail, the letter was continued on scraps of writing paper supplied by a friendly Negro trusty, and concluded on a pad my attorneys were eventually permitted to. leave me. Although the text remains in substance unaltered, I have indulged in the author's prerogative of polishing it for publication. -------

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

» Read More

Why I am committed to local church ministry.

Lou Lotz says it better than I could: Click on the link below, then on the toolbar that appears click CONTENTS, then on the pull-down menu click SIGNS OF THE KINGDOM.

Ordinary Time

It seems to me that what people will do depends in part on what people think is possible. If someone has never heard of something, then the odds are against that someone thinking of it. If someone has heard of it, but thinks it impossible, then the odds also are against that someone trying it.

"Possible" for most people also includes the consequences of an action. If we know that an action is likely to cause us distress, then we are less apt to do it. "Distress" can be caused by punishment, including the punishment of being shunned by others in society. If society overwhelming says, "This is wrong and if you do it we will treat you as a pariah," then most people will refrain from the action.

We all have internal drives. But the expression of these drives I think depends on the factors given above. And, I think internal drives can be shaped by what we learn and think possible.

At present, our society has few taboos. Self-gratification is exalted. And the internet has provided the means for scattered individuals to find "communities" of those with like drives and tastes.

We have lots of green lights, and very few red ones.

Boy Charged with Raping Dog. Here is the excerpt that really got my attention: "These crimes are getting more and more common. And it’s very disturbing," she said."

More and more common? We may reach a point where the guys in Sodom would hurl at what our people do.

For the last 50 years we have defined "freedom" as the uninhibited self-expression of the individual. Chickens do come home to roost, though in the U.S., they may want to roost on a high branch.

Maybe it is a good thing that China will be hosting the Olympics.

When first announced, I grumbled about the choice. But, the publicity in the run-up to the games has prompted discussion and debate about China's poor human-rights record

From the Ottawa Citizen, link from Netherlands Post this article on controversy in The Netherlands over participation by Dutch athletes in the Olympics. Some excerpts:

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The Netherlands irked Olympics host China on Thursday by going ahead with a discussion of the country's human rights record and the Games, despite a warning by the Chinese ambassador that the debate was offensive.

The Chinese government does not understand public relations in the West. Their response to any criticism, no matter how mild, seems always to be anger and threats. Maybe they do not know how to deal with free citizens.

Members of Tibetan groups, an organization representing the interests of the banned Chinese spiritual group Falun Gong and rights activists queued up at the microphone to express their views, many demanding a boycott of the Games. "What are you doing to stop the persecution?," "Sport doesn't live in a vacuum," and "We're being pushed under the table" were among the emotional and frustrated pleas made by such groups. [Dutch Foreign Minister] Verhagen said that a boycott would be counterproductive, and that dialogue would achieve more. But he expressed concern that respect for human rights in China seemed to be deteriorating in the run-up to the Games. "You do see a worsening situation if you look to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and we have to address these issues with China," he said.

Perhaps shining some more light into this dark corner of the world may help. CNN has this video report on Tibetan monks celebrating the honoring of the Dalai Lama by the U.S. Congress, and their repression by Chinese authorities. Previous posts:

Amnesty International report on worsening of human rights in China as Olympics near.

Call from the Dream for Darfur group for boycotts of the China Olympics to put pressure on China to end its support for the genocidal regime in The Sudan.

A few final thoughts on South Carolina:

1. The most recent numbers in South Carolina continue to indicate a two-man race between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Of course, while scientific samplings are fairly accurate most of the time, we have grown accustomed to wildly erroneous polling in recent days. Is there one more surprise out there? That is, can Fred Thompson come from nowhere to impact this contest? Unlikely on its face--but certainly not impossible.

An aside: In a real physical sense, I cannot seem to accept the idea of McCain or Huckabee winning tomorrow night. Of course, that very well may be my heart talking--rather than some prescient instinct.

2. Some positive notes:

With Romney concentrating on Nevada, the "Stop McCain and Huckabee" movement has one clear alternative in the Palmetto State: Fred.

The late-breaking “undecideds” are the element that has been giving pollsters fits. Fred has a shot at swaying this vital segment (see below).

If the conservative establishment has any power in South Carolina, Fred Thompson ought to win a lot of votes. The big boys of talk radio have pressed hard for Thompson over the last forty-eight hours. They are the noncoms of the conservative army--and they are important. How influential? We will know soon.

Fred is doing us proud, finally hitting his stride and finding his voice (to borrow a phrase). For the last fortnight, he has been heads and tails above the crowd at every outing.

3. Pointing Fingers: Fred's unorthodox anti-campaign campaign is an acquired taste; it takes time to appreciate his retro approach. I sense that he is on the verge of breaking through, but almost is not going to make it tomorrow night. No results in SC and Fred Thompson is finished.

If he does not come through tomorrow night, who to blame?

The Republican faithful for overlooking him amidst the circus; we should have worked harder to see the big picture.

The media for dismissing him when he turned out to be different than what they anticipated.

And Fred himself for not giving us more time. It is one thing to wage a laid-back under-the-radar campaign that attempts to turn back time--but he should have understood that his method might take some time to sink in. Offering the least glitzy and least dynamic style is not a good combination with the most truncated campaign.

4. Not writing Fred off (holding out some hope), but, if the worst happens, it is Romney the rest of the way by default.