26/11: Bush and the Middle East
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Very briefly:
The storyline today concerning background for the Annapolis summit has been the Bush administration's complete lack of interest in the Middle East peace process for the last seven years.
Much of the "expert" analysis has come from former Clinton administration officials (often not identified as such), who portray their boss as an engaged and talented diplomat in contrast to the current president, whom they paint as clueless and lazy.
Two things wrong with that commentary:
1. If Bush accomplishes absolutely nothing regarding the Middle East in eight years, that makes him even with nearly all of his predecessors (Clinton included). No points for heartbreakingly close calls. No points for kidding yourself that almost succeeding has anything in common with actual success.
2. Bush has not sat idly by for seven years. The mainstream media chorus today had it absolutely wrong in that mindless oversimplification. Bush met with the current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the then-PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, back in 2003. He was the first president of the United States to call for a two-state solution (a Palestinian state), which is a big deal. He was the first president to take an active role in sidelining Yasser Arafat, which he accomplished for the most part. He was instrumental in bringing democratic reforms to Palestine (which, granted, has not worked out all that well). And, most importantly, for good or for ill, Bush committed United States blood and treasure to "remaking" the Middle East into a less hostile more modern place. The decision is still very much in doubt whether he will have one bit of success on the bigger plan--but it is pretty facile to begin every news story today with the premise that President Bush is not/has not been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process.
The storyline today concerning background for the Annapolis summit has been the Bush administration's complete lack of interest in the Middle East peace process for the last seven years.
Much of the "expert" analysis has come from former Clinton administration officials (often not identified as such), who portray their boss as an engaged and talented diplomat in contrast to the current president, whom they paint as clueless and lazy.
Two things wrong with that commentary:
1. If Bush accomplishes absolutely nothing regarding the Middle East in eight years, that makes him even with nearly all of his predecessors (Clinton included). No points for heartbreakingly close calls. No points for kidding yourself that almost succeeding has anything in common with actual success.
2. Bush has not sat idly by for seven years. The mainstream media chorus today had it absolutely wrong in that mindless oversimplification. Bush met with the current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the then-PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, back in 2003. He was the first president of the United States to call for a two-state solution (a Palestinian state), which is a big deal. He was the first president to take an active role in sidelining Yasser Arafat, which he accomplished for the most part. He was instrumental in bringing democratic reforms to Palestine (which, granted, has not worked out all that well). And, most importantly, for good or for ill, Bush committed United States blood and treasure to "remaking" the Middle East into a less hostile more modern place. The decision is still very much in doubt whether he will have one bit of success on the bigger plan--but it is pretty facile to begin every news story today with the premise that President Bush is not/has not been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process.
25/11: Men in Church
For about a century and a half now, women have outnumbered men in American churches. Look over the average American congregation on Sunday morning--more women than men. Even if you mentally remove the widows--women do live longer--and concentrate on the middle-aged and younger the results are the same in most churches.
Why? Perhaps no one answer can be given, but certainly a major reason is the "feminization of Christianity." Beginning in the 19th century, Christianity was feminized: emotion was valued more than reason, hymnody reflected a female perspective ("I Come to the Garden Alone"), and Jesus was portrayed in a feminine manner (Softly and Tenderly, Jesus Is Calling). The God of Wrath and Judgment was eased out he back door, to be replaced by the God of Compassion and Acceptance. The Augustinian/Calvinist God of Command was replaced by the Divine Lover. The "Hard Sayings" of Jesus were not highlighted in devotional literature.
This morning I attended an Antiochian Orthodox Christian church. My daughter and her fiancee were received as catechumens. He was the one first attracted to Orthodoxy. As I looked around at the congregation I noticed at least as many men as women attended. Why? This essay offers some answers.
Here are the first two paragraphs:
In a time when churches of every description are faced with Vanishing Male Syndrome, men are showing up at Eastern Orthodox churches in numbers that, if not numerically impressive, are proportionately intriguing. This may be the only church which attracts and holds men in numbers equal to women. As Leon Podles wrote in his 1999 book, "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity," "The Orthodox are the only Christians who write basso profundo church music, or need to."
Rather than guess why this is, I emailed a hundred Orthodox men, most of whom joined the Church as adults. What do they think makes this church particularly attractive to men? Their responses, below, may spark some ideas for leaders in other churches, who are looking for ways to keep guys in the pews.
From 1987-1994 I served as pastor of a rural Reformed congregation that was traditional Dutch. We had about equal numbers of men and women on Sunday mornings, including complete families--husband, wife, children. What we had in common with the Orthodoxy of the essay was a conservative theology that emphasized God, strong expectations for the Christian life, relatively little emphasis on the trivialities of pietism (several of our men gathered outside the building to smoke, many of them drank beer at home), male leadership of the congregation, and worship that focused on God and God's Word.
Why? Perhaps no one answer can be given, but certainly a major reason is the "feminization of Christianity." Beginning in the 19th century, Christianity was feminized: emotion was valued more than reason, hymnody reflected a female perspective ("I Come to the Garden Alone"), and Jesus was portrayed in a feminine manner (Softly and Tenderly, Jesus Is Calling). The God of Wrath and Judgment was eased out he back door, to be replaced by the God of Compassion and Acceptance. The Augustinian/Calvinist God of Command was replaced by the Divine Lover. The "Hard Sayings" of Jesus were not highlighted in devotional literature.
This morning I attended an Antiochian Orthodox Christian church. My daughter and her fiancee were received as catechumens. He was the one first attracted to Orthodoxy. As I looked around at the congregation I noticed at least as many men as women attended. Why? This essay offers some answers.
Here are the first two paragraphs:
In a time when churches of every description are faced with Vanishing Male Syndrome, men are showing up at Eastern Orthodox churches in numbers that, if not numerically impressive, are proportionately intriguing. This may be the only church which attracts and holds men in numbers equal to women. As Leon Podles wrote in his 1999 book, "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity," "The Orthodox are the only Christians who write basso profundo church music, or need to."
Rather than guess why this is, I emailed a hundred Orthodox men, most of whom joined the Church as adults. What do they think makes this church particularly attractive to men? Their responses, below, may spark some ideas for leaders in other churches, who are looking for ways to keep guys in the pews.
From 1987-1994 I served as pastor of a rural Reformed congregation that was traditional Dutch. We had about equal numbers of men and women on Sunday mornings, including complete families--husband, wife, children. What we had in common with the Orthodoxy of the essay was a conservative theology that emphasized God, strong expectations for the Christian life, relatively little emphasis on the trivialities of pietism (several of our men gathered outside the building to smoke, many of them drank beer at home), male leadership of the congregation, and worship that focused on God and God's Word.
25/11: On the Ground in Iowa
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Over the Thanksgiving weekend I spoke with an Iowa political officeholder and Democrat. This person and spouse will caucus for Edwards, as they did in 04.
Some observations:
Clinton and Obama have support, but may not have snowy-night depth of commitment. (In the Iowa caucuses, you must show up in someone's living room or community building on the appointed night in order to caucus. Weather can play a factor. Snow, ice, twenty below with a wind, will test the heartfelt commitment of a caucus-goer.) My source thought Clinton's supporters were more the products of organization and money, not genuine enthusiasm; and that Obama's supporters tended to be young and might not actually show up in the strength of their numbers. Conclusion: if the weather is good and the night mild, Clinton and Obama probably will fight it out for the Iowa win. If the weather is bad, then Edwards.
Speaking of Republicans. My source thinks that the Romney and Guiliani probably are leading and may win on a pleasant evening. In case of bad weather, then Huckabee. The reasoning is the same as for Clinton v. Edwards above.
btw, in and otherwise sane and stable person, my source's depth of Bush-hatred is troubling
Some observations:
Clinton and Obama have support, but may not have snowy-night depth of commitment. (In the Iowa caucuses, you must show up in someone's living room or community building on the appointed night in order to caucus. Weather can play a factor. Snow, ice, twenty below with a wind, will test the heartfelt commitment of a caucus-goer.) My source thought Clinton's supporters were more the products of organization and money, not genuine enthusiasm; and that Obama's supporters tended to be young and might not actually show up in the strength of their numbers. Conclusion: if the weather is good and the night mild, Clinton and Obama probably will fight it out for the Iowa win. If the weather is bad, then Edwards.
Speaking of Republicans. My source thinks that the Romney and Guiliani probably are leading and may win on a pleasant evening. In case of bad weather, then Huckabee. The reasoning is the same as for Clinton v. Edwards above.
btw, in and otherwise sane and stable person, my source's depth of Bush-hatred is troubling
Category: Frivolity
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the New York Times:
In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses
"Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place."
Later in the article:
"Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.
'"The movie studios used to demand that their employees have standard Waspy names,' said Justin Kaplan, an historian and co-author of 'The Language of Names.'"
"'Now, look at Renée Zellweger,' Mr. Kaplan said."
Tocqueville observes:
"There's a bit of unintended humor here. The NYT assures us that, until recently, the movie studios insisted on Anglo-Saxon ("Waspy") names. As a sign of progress, look at the success of Rene Zellweger. Zellweger being, well, uh, German. This is obviously a real advance from the days when Otto Preminger, Zero Mostel, Maximilian Schell, and Marlene Dietrich were forced to call themselves Otto Preminger, Zero Mostel, Maximilian Schell, and Marlene Dietrich. Think of the case of poor Yul Brynner!"
In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses
"Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place."
Later in the article:
"Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.
'"The movie studios used to demand that their employees have standard Waspy names,' said Justin Kaplan, an historian and co-author of 'The Language of Names.'"
"'Now, look at Renée Zellweger,' Mr. Kaplan said."
Tocqueville observes:
"There's a bit of unintended humor here. The NYT assures us that, until recently, the movie studios insisted on Anglo-Saxon ("Waspy") names. As a sign of progress, look at the success of Rene Zellweger. Zellweger being, well, uh, German. This is obviously a real advance from the days when Otto Preminger, Zero Mostel, Maximilian Schell, and Marlene Dietrich were forced to call themselves Otto Preminger, Zero Mostel, Maximilian Schell, and Marlene Dietrich. Think of the case of poor Yul Brynner!"
21/11: A Show About Bees
Category: Books, Movies and TV
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few weekends ago, my sons and I went to see Bee Movie. I have a few brief thoughts on the film eventually, but first a thought or two about fatherhood:
In many ways, I was "born again" (again) on May 12, 1999 (the birthday of my first son).
The act of being a father to my two boys fundamentally changed my perspective on life.
I am a history teacher by vocation--and an historian by avocation. However, I did not truly understand the interconnectedness (the true power) of history until the birth of my sons.
An example: in the Stephen Spielberg film, Amistad, slavers fall upon the protagonist of the story, (we know him as Joseph Cinqué). The kidnapping proves violently disturbing--but, for me, the most bone-crushingly brutal shot is the one in which Cinqué's son, who does not witness the scuffle, sees only an empty frame where his father should be. They boy registers a slightly confused expression as to why his father is no longer visible; he is unaware that dad is gone for good. But we know, of course, what he does not.
The boy's face never fails to hit me like a sledgehammer. True, Cinqué has lost his freedom--but the much more profound tragedy is that a son has lost his father. Who will protect, teach, and love this boy? In that one scene, we begin to comprehend the enormity of the slavery holocaust, the catastrophic hole in the fabric of West African society that greatly exceeded the mere loss of individual liberty.
One other example: understanding the love of God.
The metaphor of God the Father is ubiquitous throughout the Bible. However, the analogy has virtually no meaning to anyone who has not experienced parental love, which is quite impossible to understand fully from a child's point of view (the object of the love). While I knew all my life that my parents loved me, I had no idea what that all-consuming, self-sacrificing, life-giving brand of higher love meant until I experienced fatherhood.
"What father when his son asks for a fish would hand him a serpent instead?" Before parenthood: a pretty bad one? After parenthood: Ah, I understand now. The Parable of the Prodigal Son: my voice cracks, my throat constricts, and my eyes fill with tears reading aloud the story, as I imagine the unspeakable joy of the father when he first catches a distant glimpse of his lost child coming home.
What does this have to do with Jerry Seinfeld?
In many ways, I was "born again" (again) on May 12, 1999 (the birthday of my first son).
The act of being a father to my two boys fundamentally changed my perspective on life.
I am a history teacher by vocation--and an historian by avocation. However, I did not truly understand the interconnectedness (the true power) of history until the birth of my sons.
An example: in the Stephen Spielberg film, Amistad, slavers fall upon the protagonist of the story, (we know him as Joseph Cinqué). The kidnapping proves violently disturbing--but, for me, the most bone-crushingly brutal shot is the one in which Cinqué's son, who does not witness the scuffle, sees only an empty frame where his father should be. They boy registers a slightly confused expression as to why his father is no longer visible; he is unaware that dad is gone for good. But we know, of course, what he does not.
The boy's face never fails to hit me like a sledgehammer. True, Cinqué has lost his freedom--but the much more profound tragedy is that a son has lost his father. Who will protect, teach, and love this boy? In that one scene, we begin to comprehend the enormity of the slavery holocaust, the catastrophic hole in the fabric of West African society that greatly exceeded the mere loss of individual liberty.
One other example: understanding the love of God.
The metaphor of God the Father is ubiquitous throughout the Bible. However, the analogy has virtually no meaning to anyone who has not experienced parental love, which is quite impossible to understand fully from a child's point of view (the object of the love). While I knew all my life that my parents loved me, I had no idea what that all-consuming, self-sacrificing, life-giving brand of higher love meant until I experienced fatherhood.
"What father when his son asks for a fish would hand him a serpent instead?" Before parenthood: a pretty bad one? After parenthood: Ah, I understand now. The Parable of the Prodigal Son: my voice cracks, my throat constricts, and my eyes fill with tears reading aloud the story, as I imagine the unspeakable joy of the father when he first catches a distant glimpse of his lost child coming home.
What does this have to do with Jerry Seinfeld?
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
This past Saturday afternoon, November 17, about 100 members of our community gathered in the warm fall Oklahoma sunshine to dedicate the new Veterans' Park on the north edge of town, at the highway intersection.
Led by the Chamber of Commerce, and involving other organizations, our town of Apache chose to observe the Oklahoma Centennial by building a new park in honor of our veterans. The county brought in fill dirt to create a circle perhaps 40 feet in diameter at the level of the highway. A contractor poured concrete, then memorial bricks were laid to form the surface, each containing the name of a veteran with dates of service. A stone memorial was placed in the center, inscribed with the names of 30 sons of our town, and the surrounding countryside, who either died in service, or were POWs. The population of Apache is less than 2000.
The first name is that of CPL Roy L. Rinker, U.S. Army, World War 1, Died of Wounds Oct. 5, 1918. The most recent death inscribed is that of CPL Joshua J. Ware, U.S. Marine Corps, War on Terrorism, Killed in Action Nov. 16, 2005. (I posted about his funeral here.) Also on the stone, LT Pascal C. Poolaw, Sr., U.S. Army, Vietnam War, Killed in Action Nov. 7, 1967. He remains the most decorated Native American to have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Among the POWs, SSG Bruce W. Klinekole, U.S. Army, World War II, POW Apr 9, 1942 to Sep 1, 1945. He survived the Bataan Death March and was liberated from a Japanese prison camp in Manchuria. A complete list of names is below the fold.
A week or two before the dedication volunteers spent most of a Saturday laying sod, planting bushes and trees, erecting two flagpoles, and installing lights.
We gathered on the 17th as an Army brass quintet from Ft. Sill played. A welcome was given, a prayer offered, the National Anthem sung, guests introduced, participating organizations recognized, and the history of the project related. Then Lanny Asepermy, a member of the Comanche Indian Veterans' Association and retired Army Sergeant Major, read the names of those on the monument. As he does whenever he speaks on behalf of veterans, Lanny said: "Only two defining forces have offered to die for you--one is Jesus Christ for your soul. The other is the American soldier for your freedom." A gun salute was fired, and taps played. Two state legislators and a National Guard Brigadier General spoke briefly. Then we adjourned to the Community Center for refreshments.
As I sat in the crowd, two voices ran through my mind. I heard Merle sing in his voice at once common and profound:
We don't our burn draft cards down on Main Street
'Cause we like living right and being free
I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee
A place where even squares can have a ball
We still wave Old Glory down by the court house
And white lightning's still the biggest thrill of all
And I heard words from another November day, at another dedication; words delivered in a high-pitched voice that carried the sound of Kentucky in it, spoken on a ridge in south-central Pennslvania decades before I was born.
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
May God grant us strength so to resolve in our generation.
Led by the Chamber of Commerce, and involving other organizations, our town of Apache chose to observe the Oklahoma Centennial by building a new park in honor of our veterans. The county brought in fill dirt to create a circle perhaps 40 feet in diameter at the level of the highway. A contractor poured concrete, then memorial bricks were laid to form the surface, each containing the name of a veteran with dates of service. A stone memorial was placed in the center, inscribed with the names of 30 sons of our town, and the surrounding countryside, who either died in service, or were POWs. The population of Apache is less than 2000.
The first name is that of CPL Roy L. Rinker, U.S. Army, World War 1, Died of Wounds Oct. 5, 1918. The most recent death inscribed is that of CPL Joshua J. Ware, U.S. Marine Corps, War on Terrorism, Killed in Action Nov. 16, 2005. (I posted about his funeral here.) Also on the stone, LT Pascal C. Poolaw, Sr., U.S. Army, Vietnam War, Killed in Action Nov. 7, 1967. He remains the most decorated Native American to have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Among the POWs, SSG Bruce W. Klinekole, U.S. Army, World War II, POW Apr 9, 1942 to Sep 1, 1945. He survived the Bataan Death March and was liberated from a Japanese prison camp in Manchuria. A complete list of names is below the fold.
A week or two before the dedication volunteers spent most of a Saturday laying sod, planting bushes and trees, erecting two flagpoles, and installing lights.
We gathered on the 17th as an Army brass quintet from Ft. Sill played. A welcome was given, a prayer offered, the National Anthem sung, guests introduced, participating organizations recognized, and the history of the project related. Then Lanny Asepermy, a member of the Comanche Indian Veterans' Association and retired Army Sergeant Major, read the names of those on the monument. As he does whenever he speaks on behalf of veterans, Lanny said: "Only two defining forces have offered to die for you--one is Jesus Christ for your soul. The other is the American soldier for your freedom." A gun salute was fired, and taps played. Two state legislators and a National Guard Brigadier General spoke briefly. Then we adjourned to the Community Center for refreshments.
As I sat in the crowd, two voices ran through my mind. I heard Merle sing in his voice at once common and profound:
We don't our burn draft cards down on Main Street
'Cause we like living right and being free
I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee
A place where even squares can have a ball
We still wave Old Glory down by the court house
And white lightning's still the biggest thrill of all
And I heard words from another November day, at another dedication; words delivered in a high-pitched voice that carried the sound of Kentucky in it, spoken on a ridge in south-central Pennslvania decades before I was born.
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
May God grant us strength so to resolve in our generation.
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
Archealogists in Italy think they may have found the cave ancient Romans regarded as the place where Romulus and Remus, the mythic founders of Rome, were suckled by the wolf. It has been known that the Romans regarded a cave as the sacred Lupercale and conducted worship there. What has been unknown to modern scholars was the location of the cave. Now we may know. The Adventure Continues. Story here.
Category: US in Iraq.archive.iv
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Tuesday on Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks.
Gross tasked Ricks, the author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, with explaining how the much-ballyhooed "surge" is, in fact, failing miserably.
He was the right man for the job. In essence:
Technically, the Anbar Awakening, the "new life in Baghdad," the decreasing levels of violence against American servicepersons, and the plummeting incidents of sectarian violence in Iraq are all positive signs. But the real truth is that none of that matters. The real problem is the "intransigence of the Shia-dominated government."
That is, George Bush said the surge was designed to provide "breathing space" to bring about a political solution. The political solution (at least at the national level) has not materialized; therefore, the surge has failed. Which means Harry Reid was right: "the war is lost" (and a Fiasco, for that matter).
Nothing like some objective analysis from an expert reporter with no axes to grind.
Actually, Ricks merely voiced the opposition talking points already making the rounds. I have avoided this phrase: "Democrats are invested in defeat." However, the utter refusal to accept the objective reality that the surge has worked and opened up new possibilities in Iraq leaves me little choice.
The most pressing question in American politics today remains whether Democrats are willing to forego political advantage to save the country.
Gross tasked Ricks, the author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, with explaining how the much-ballyhooed "surge" is, in fact, failing miserably.
He was the right man for the job. In essence:
Technically, the Anbar Awakening, the "new life in Baghdad," the decreasing levels of violence against American servicepersons, and the plummeting incidents of sectarian violence in Iraq are all positive signs. But the real truth is that none of that matters. The real problem is the "intransigence of the Shia-dominated government."
That is, George Bush said the surge was designed to provide "breathing space" to bring about a political solution. The political solution (at least at the national level) has not materialized; therefore, the surge has failed. Which means Harry Reid was right: "the war is lost" (and a Fiasco, for that matter).
Nothing like some objective analysis from an expert reporter with no axes to grind.
Actually, Ricks merely voiced the opposition talking points already making the rounds. I have avoided this phrase: "Democrats are invested in defeat." However, the utter refusal to accept the objective reality that the surge has worked and opened up new possibilities in Iraq leaves me little choice.
The most pressing question in American politics today remains whether Democrats are willing to forego political advantage to save the country.
From the Washington Post:
"The top three Democratic presidential contenders remain locked in a close battle in Iowa, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seeing her advantages diminish on key issues, including the questions of experience and which candidate is best prepared to handle the war in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll."
The Latest in Iowa:
Obama 30
Clinton 26
John Edwards 22
Bill Richardson 11
What does it mean?
First a few things to keep in mind:
Iowa has always been an obstacle for Hillary. So much so that she even considered bypassing the caucus; as a result, she was late in committing to contest Iowa. Why? Bill did not run a campaign in Iowa back in 1992 because Tom Harkin was running for president, so the exceptionally talented Clinton brain trust lacks experience in the Hawkeye State. The Edwards campaign, on the other hand, ran strong there in 2004 and opened the 2008 contest with a significant organizational advantage. Exciting newcomer, Barack Obama, hails from a neighboring state.
Perhaps more problematic, the polling data suggests a personal distaste for the candidate. Iowans question her honesty, perceiving her as guarded and calculating. For some anecdotal evidence from the Bosque Boys archives, you can review the Okie Gardener's on-the-ground reporting from Iowa early this summer (within a conversation we had back then) here. In a nutshell: Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. Iowans seem especially unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
Something Technical. There is always a lag time in polling. Any sampling represents merely a snapshot of opinion from a certain period, in this instance, November 14-18. It is reasonable to surmise that Hillary's poor debate performance two weeks ago and her subsequent scramble influenced that data, while her comeback performance in Las Vegas had little impact on the poll. So, for the next week, we are going to be talking about what 500 Iowans thought last week. In the back and forth of a year-long presidential nominating campaign, one set of those numbers is not especially significant.
The Real Danger for Clinton
Having said that, while the poll reflects merely a tiny ripple, the real import of the poll will be in how much it accelerates a potentially hazardous trend. Hillary Clinton is at risk while this storyline dominates the news cycle. Nothing has changed in real terms--but her campaign is in danger as long as the interested public consciousness perceives a contest in flux or, even worse, a momentum shift.
What does all this mean nationally?
To reiterate, not much has changed. Candidate Clinton can overcome a modest loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary following Iowa. Of course, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. A win would come very close to clinching her aura of inevitability and set in motion all the elements needed for a landslide victory.
This poll is another installment of the same sobering story for John Edwards. Iowa is make or break for him. If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished. He is not gaining ground. To a lesser extent, this poll is bad news for Bill Richardson as well, who remains flat. He broke 10 percent in late summer, but he seems stuck there.
The poll is obviously good news for Barack Obama, who has proven himself a dynamic campaigner in Iowa. His performance there has confirmed the notion that he is a real political force on the national level. A win in Iowa gives him a real boost and makes him the only alternative to Hillary in the ensuing contests.
However, if the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. He will still have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire--but he will need to draw an inside straight from there to pull out the nomination.
For more on Obama's dilemma, my post from last week: The Power of Obama is palpable, but, then again, he is no Jack Kennedy.
Predictions?
I will recycle this old one, quoting myself from July (full previous post here):
"Right now Mrs. Clinton holds a comfortable lead. Most likely, Obama will continue to rise in the polls until he is even with Clinton, possibly even surpass Clinton, and then peak. These will be tense moments. Both camps will develop a deep dislike for the other. Then Mrs. Clinton's experience and superior organization will take over, the adults in the Democratic Party will exert their influence, Clinton will pull back ahead of Obama, and then pull away from him down the stretch. Then Mrs. Clinton will extend a gracious hand of friendship to Obama and offer him the VP. Obama will seize the opportunity to further his political education and prepare for his ultimate elevation to the Chief Executive. And they both shall live happily ever after.
"On the other hand, so much can go wrong. If Obama catches fire, and wins the nomination (still an entirely plausible potential outcome), all bets are off. Obama is the one viable candidate of inexperience."
As Tom Patterson likes to say, "I wouldn't bet my house on anything right now," but, even with that hedge, Mrs. Clinton's organization is going to be very difficult to beat. One thing is certain: it is definitely "crunch" time; the long pre-campaign season is quickly drawing to a close, and it is "now or never" for this whole slate of candidates.
UPDATE: The Bosque Boys welcome Slate readers. Thanks to Laurel Wamsley for noticing us in her "Today's Blogs: The Latest Chatter in Cyberspace" column.
"The top three Democratic presidential contenders remain locked in a close battle in Iowa, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seeing her advantages diminish on key issues, including the questions of experience and which candidate is best prepared to handle the war in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll."
The Latest in Iowa:
Obama 30
Clinton 26
John Edwards 22
Bill Richardson 11
What does it mean?
First a few things to keep in mind:
Iowa has always been an obstacle for Hillary. So much so that she even considered bypassing the caucus; as a result, she was late in committing to contest Iowa. Why? Bill did not run a campaign in Iowa back in 1992 because Tom Harkin was running for president, so the exceptionally talented Clinton brain trust lacks experience in the Hawkeye State. The Edwards campaign, on the other hand, ran strong there in 2004 and opened the 2008 contest with a significant organizational advantage. Exciting newcomer, Barack Obama, hails from a neighboring state.
Perhaps more problematic, the polling data suggests a personal distaste for the candidate. Iowans question her honesty, perceiving her as guarded and calculating. For some anecdotal evidence from the Bosque Boys archives, you can review the Okie Gardener's on-the-ground reporting from Iowa early this summer (within a conversation we had back then) here. In a nutshell: Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. Iowans seem especially unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
Something Technical. There is always a lag time in polling. Any sampling represents merely a snapshot of opinion from a certain period, in this instance, November 14-18. It is reasonable to surmise that Hillary's poor debate performance two weeks ago and her subsequent scramble influenced that data, while her comeback performance in Las Vegas had little impact on the poll. So, for the next week, we are going to be talking about what 500 Iowans thought last week. In the back and forth of a year-long presidential nominating campaign, one set of those numbers is not especially significant.
The Real Danger for Clinton
Having said that, while the poll reflects merely a tiny ripple, the real import of the poll will be in how much it accelerates a potentially hazardous trend. Hillary Clinton is at risk while this storyline dominates the news cycle. Nothing has changed in real terms--but her campaign is in danger as long as the interested public consciousness perceives a contest in flux or, even worse, a momentum shift.
What does all this mean nationally?
To reiterate, not much has changed. Candidate Clinton can overcome a modest loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary following Iowa. Of course, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. A win would come very close to clinching her aura of inevitability and set in motion all the elements needed for a landslide victory.
This poll is another installment of the same sobering story for John Edwards. Iowa is make or break for him. If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished. He is not gaining ground. To a lesser extent, this poll is bad news for Bill Richardson as well, who remains flat. He broke 10 percent in late summer, but he seems stuck there.
The poll is obviously good news for Barack Obama, who has proven himself a dynamic campaigner in Iowa. His performance there has confirmed the notion that he is a real political force on the national level. A win in Iowa gives him a real boost and makes him the only alternative to Hillary in the ensuing contests.
However, if the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. He will still have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire--but he will need to draw an inside straight from there to pull out the nomination.
For more on Obama's dilemma, my post from last week: The Power of Obama is palpable, but, then again, he is no Jack Kennedy.
Predictions?
I will recycle this old one, quoting myself from July (full previous post here):
"Right now Mrs. Clinton holds a comfortable lead. Most likely, Obama will continue to rise in the polls until he is even with Clinton, possibly even surpass Clinton, and then peak. These will be tense moments. Both camps will develop a deep dislike for the other. Then Mrs. Clinton's experience and superior organization will take over, the adults in the Democratic Party will exert their influence, Clinton will pull back ahead of Obama, and then pull away from him down the stretch. Then Mrs. Clinton will extend a gracious hand of friendship to Obama and offer him the VP. Obama will seize the opportunity to further his political education and prepare for his ultimate elevation to the Chief Executive. And they both shall live happily ever after.
"On the other hand, so much can go wrong. If Obama catches fire, and wins the nomination (still an entirely plausible potential outcome), all bets are off. Obama is the one viable candidate of inexperience."
As Tom Patterson likes to say, "I wouldn't bet my house on anything right now," but, even with that hedge, Mrs. Clinton's organization is going to be very difficult to beat. One thing is certain: it is definitely "crunch" time; the long pre-campaign season is quickly drawing to a close, and it is "now or never" for this whole slate of candidates.
UPDATE: The Bosque Boys welcome Slate readers. Thanks to Laurel Wamsley for noticing us in her "Today's Blogs: The Latest Chatter in Cyberspace" column.
"It cannot be too often repeated that what destroyed the Family in the modern world was Capitalism." G.K. Chesterton in "Three Foes of the Family" found in the collection of his essays The Well and the Shallows.
To many American evangelicals, or other conservative American Christians, the above quotation may sound strange. This sense of strangeness occurs because by the early 1800s most American evangelicals were embracing capitalism. Earlier Protestants had some initial reservations about capitalism, for example the Puritans insisted that all human relations, including economic, were subject to God's righteous morality, so that prices, for example, should be fair rather than simply what the market would bear. Even over a century after the Puritans, debates were conducted in some Protestant papers during the Panic of 1837 between those who thought Christians should pay living wages and not take advantage of the troubles of others to buy land too cheaply, and those who advocated following the market. Those who embraced the capitalist market economy won in almost all denominations. The changes involved were not limited to economic transactions. By the mid-to-latter 1800s most evangelical churches had begun to act like other parts of the capitalist market economy, seeing people as consumers who needed to be targeted, and tailoring their approaches and product so as to appeal to the largest market segment. Today's mega-churches, the Box Stores of Christianity, are the culmination of this trend: consumers come for the most personal value for the cheapest price. In addition, the Red Scares and the Cold War pushed many American denominations into supporting the American Way of Life against "godless Boshevism" or "atheistic Communism." Capitalism was regarded as an essential part of the American Way. Therefore, any criticism of capitalism, implied or explicit, falls on ears of American Christians like a foreign language.
I have been approaching this quotation at a glacial pace precisely because Chesterton's words will sound strange to many. In the first post, I presented some brief biographical information on G.K. Chesterton. In the second and third posts I tried to introduce Chesterton's economic preference, Distributivism. My hope is that today's post has created an awareness that Christianity has not always and everywhere seen Capitalism as a godly system. Next, G.K.'s Roman Catholicism and economics.
If you have not already done so, I recommend you take a look at the American Chesterton Society website, and also that of Gilbert Magazine.
To many American evangelicals, or other conservative American Christians, the above quotation may sound strange. This sense of strangeness occurs because by the early 1800s most American evangelicals were embracing capitalism. Earlier Protestants had some initial reservations about capitalism, for example the Puritans insisted that all human relations, including economic, were subject to God's righteous morality, so that prices, for example, should be fair rather than simply what the market would bear. Even over a century after the Puritans, debates were conducted in some Protestant papers during the Panic of 1837 between those who thought Christians should pay living wages and not take advantage of the troubles of others to buy land too cheaply, and those who advocated following the market. Those who embraced the capitalist market economy won in almost all denominations. The changes involved were not limited to economic transactions. By the mid-to-latter 1800s most evangelical churches had begun to act like other parts of the capitalist market economy, seeing people as consumers who needed to be targeted, and tailoring their approaches and product so as to appeal to the largest market segment. Today's mega-churches, the Box Stores of Christianity, are the culmination of this trend: consumers come for the most personal value for the cheapest price. In addition, the Red Scares and the Cold War pushed many American denominations into supporting the American Way of Life against "godless Boshevism" or "atheistic Communism." Capitalism was regarded as an essential part of the American Way. Therefore, any criticism of capitalism, implied or explicit, falls on ears of American Christians like a foreign language.
I have been approaching this quotation at a glacial pace precisely because Chesterton's words will sound strange to many. In the first post, I presented some brief biographical information on G.K. Chesterton. In the second and third posts I tried to introduce Chesterton's economic preference, Distributivism. My hope is that today's post has created an awareness that Christianity has not always and everywhere seen Capitalism as a godly system. Next, G.K.'s Roman Catholicism and economics.
If you have not already done so, I recommend you take a look at the American Chesterton Society website, and also that of Gilbert Magazine.
