Category: American Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
Tenured faculty members have passed a No Confidence resolution on President Richard Roberts. Story.
Oral Roberts University is significant in American Christianity because it an attempt to fuse pentecostalism with the institutional structure of a liberal arts university (as opposed to small Bible Colleges) and a modern medical center.
Pentecostalism has tended to favor personalities over structures and established procedures. It seems like Richard Roberts inherited the presidency because he was Oral's son. In this case, leadership change suffered from the pentecostal prediliction toward personalities and away from structural procedures.
Oral Roberts University is significant in American Christianity because it an attempt to fuse pentecostalism with the institutional structure of a liberal arts university (as opposed to small Bible Colleges) and a modern medical center.
Pentecostalism has tended to favor personalities over structures and established procedures. It seems like Richard Roberts inherited the presidency because he was Oral's son. In this case, leadership change suffered from the pentecostal prediliction toward personalities and away from structural procedures.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Story here. The story speaks for itself.
13/11: Dangerous If "Made in China"
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Another product with dangers; and this goes beyond lead paint in toys.
VIRUS: Investigators say the tainted Maxtor portable hard disc, made by Seagate, uploads information saved on the computer automatically to Web sites in Beijing
Buy an external hard drive, have your data sent to websites in China. Just great. Why do we still have open free trade with these *ssh*l*s?
Post on Wizbang with links. The quotation above from the Taipei Times. (It is in English so click no if asked to install language packet.)
VIRUS: Investigators say the tainted Maxtor portable hard disc, made by Seagate, uploads information saved on the computer automatically to Web sites in Beijing
Buy an external hard drive, have your data sent to websites in China. Just great. Why do we still have open free trade with these *ssh*l*s?
Post on Wizbang with links. The quotation above from the Taipei Times. (It is in English so click no if asked to install language packet.)
The thought of Hillary in the White House frightens me. And I am not talking about Bill roaming the halls at night in search of young interns.
1. Hillary is an internationalist. She favors international organizations over national interests. To see what such a mentality leads to, look at the EU: rule by unelected burearcrats. She does not seem to prize the hard-won liberties of our Anglo-American heritage.
2. Hillary is duplicitous, ruthless, and believes herself to be above the law. See Whitewater, FBI files, and character assassination.
3. Hillary's vision for America includes a much larger and more powerful central government, leading to the continued decline of localism, individualism, and the family.
4. Hillary will nominate judges who share her views. We will be living under the rulings of these jurists long after 4 or 8 years.
Do the other Democratic candidates share her views? In part they do. But no other one candidate brings quite the same package she does.
1. Hillary is an internationalist. She favors international organizations over national interests. To see what such a mentality leads to, look at the EU: rule by unelected burearcrats. She does not seem to prize the hard-won liberties of our Anglo-American heritage.
2. Hillary is duplicitous, ruthless, and believes herself to be above the law. See Whitewater, FBI files, and character assassination.
3. Hillary's vision for America includes a much larger and more powerful central government, leading to the continued decline of localism, individualism, and the family.
4. Hillary will nominate judges who share her views. We will be living under the rulings of these jurists long after 4 or 8 years.
Do the other Democratic candidates share her views? In part they do. But no other one candidate brings quite the same package she does.
Story here, with link to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.
The Ft. Worth, Texas, man had the DVD playing in his vehicle when police spotted it. He was arrested for obscene display, not having a drivers' license, and for an open alcohol container.
Should the police have acted when they saw the images on the screen? Was this an invasion of the man's privacy?
I think it was a good arrest. A car is not private space, but at best semi-private space; which means semi-public space. In order for a driver to see out, others will be able to see in. I think the same would even hold if a person watched pornography near enough an uncurtained window for someone to see in.
The argument that if you don't like it don't watch it, has only limited merit. We also do not want our children exposed to it. Watching pornography in automobiles exposes our children to the images.
The Ft. Worth, Texas, man had the DVD playing in his vehicle when police spotted it. He was arrested for obscene display, not having a drivers' license, and for an open alcohol container.
Should the police have acted when they saw the images on the screen? Was this an invasion of the man's privacy?
I think it was a good arrest. A car is not private space, but at best semi-private space; which means semi-public space. In order for a driver to see out, others will be able to see in. I think the same would even hold if a person watched pornography near enough an uncurtained window for someone to see in.
The argument that if you don't like it don't watch it, has only limited merit. We also do not want our children exposed to it. Watching pornography in automobiles exposes our children to the images.
12/11: Mitt Romney's Mormonism
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
According to an AP story linked by Drudge:
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Saturday his political advisers have warned him against giving a speech explaining his Mormon faith.
This morning I heard Mark Davis, the excellent WBAP talk-show host, urging Romney to make the speech, to explain his religion in order to win evangelicals. I now reprint my earlier post on the question, explaining why I do think giving the speech would backfire.
The other morning I heard a radio talk-show host opine that for Romney to break out of the low poll numbers, he would need to address the fact of his Mormonism head-on. The host said that Romney should give the nation a short-course in Mormonism. Perhaps he meant that conservative unease with the thought of a Mormon president was due to fear of the unknown.
But fear of the unknown is not the problem. Southern evangelicals are in a battle for converts with Mormon missionaries, the nearly ubiquitous pairs of neatly dressed young men and women who can be seen walking or bicycling through suburbs everywhere. In the South especially, Mormons present themselves very much as the church of God and country, patriotism and traditional morality. Local Southern Baptists feel the Mormon missionaries are stealing their best lines. In Sunday School classes and from pulpits conservative church-goers are warned against "the cults;" that list includes Mormonism.
For Romney to address his Mormonism explicitly in a high-profile way carries a great political risk. So long as conservative Christians don't think about his religion, Romney could seem an attractive candidate. But if he were to address his religion in an attention-getting fashion, tens-of-thousands of evangelicals will get the heebie-jeebies. They have been primed to react this way.
And, there is another reason for Romney not to give the address the radio host called for. Trying to explain Mormonism, even in a short course, will involve the now-you-see-them, now-you-don't Golden Plates, the belief that "God" is Adam-become-the-god-for-this-world, that any male Mormon potentially can become a god with his own world, that there are a potentially infinite number of gods, that women reach a place in paradise based on the achievements of their man, etc. The buzz generated by a Romney Mormonism speech will bring up not just polygamy, but also holy underwear, the former ban on black priests, and the "history" of North America that contradicts everything anthropology and archealogy teaches. He would risk alienating many beyond the evangelical base whose reaction might be, "that's just plain weird."
I don't think Romney has a snowball's chance to capture the 08 Republican nomination.
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Saturday his political advisers have warned him against giving a speech explaining his Mormon faith.
This morning I heard Mark Davis, the excellent WBAP talk-show host, urging Romney to make the speech, to explain his religion in order to win evangelicals. I now reprint my earlier post on the question, explaining why I do think giving the speech would backfire.
The other morning I heard a radio talk-show host opine that for Romney to break out of the low poll numbers, he would need to address the fact of his Mormonism head-on. The host said that Romney should give the nation a short-course in Mormonism. Perhaps he meant that conservative unease with the thought of a Mormon president was due to fear of the unknown.
But fear of the unknown is not the problem. Southern evangelicals are in a battle for converts with Mormon missionaries, the nearly ubiquitous pairs of neatly dressed young men and women who can be seen walking or bicycling through suburbs everywhere. In the South especially, Mormons present themselves very much as the church of God and country, patriotism and traditional morality. Local Southern Baptists feel the Mormon missionaries are stealing their best lines. In Sunday School classes and from pulpits conservative church-goers are warned against "the cults;" that list includes Mormonism.
For Romney to address his Mormonism explicitly in a high-profile way carries a great political risk. So long as conservative Christians don't think about his religion, Romney could seem an attractive candidate. But if he were to address his religion in an attention-getting fashion, tens-of-thousands of evangelicals will get the heebie-jeebies. They have been primed to react this way.
And, there is another reason for Romney not to give the address the radio host called for. Trying to explain Mormonism, even in a short course, will involve the now-you-see-them, now-you-don't Golden Plates, the belief that "God" is Adam-become-the-god-for-this-world, that any male Mormon potentially can become a god with his own world, that there are a potentially infinite number of gods, that women reach a place in paradise based on the achievements of their man, etc. The buzz generated by a Romney Mormonism speech will bring up not just polygamy, but also holy underwear, the former ban on black priests, and the "history" of North America that contradicts everything anthropology and archealogy teaches. He would risk alienating many beyond the evangelical base whose reaction might be, "that's just plain weird."
I don't think Romney has a snowball's chance to capture the 08 Republican nomination.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
If you close your eyes at an Indian pow-wow, you can imagine yourself anywhere, or anywhen. The men beating the drum in the center of the circle keep up a complex rhythm that sounds on the surface deceptively simple, boom boom boom. The men singers and lady singers do songs in which rhythm and pitch seem to matter as much as the words. While the drummers around here mostly use Southern Style, if you close your eyes, you could be in Oklahoma, or New Mexico, or Texas. With a little imagination you could be anywhere in the world people gather round the drum to sing and dance. Or, you could be anywhen, now or the last century or 3000 years ago. The drum, the singing, the dancing.
Tonight at the Veterans' Day pow-wow put on by the Comanche Indian Veterans Association veterans were honored individually, called into the place of honor during the dance, one at a time. Between dances they were called to the east side of the circle, in small groups, and given gifts. Warriors honored for their service. It does not take much imagination to see other places, other times--the drums and dancing and honor given to warriors: red skin or white skin or black skin or yellow skin or brown skin.
War has been a constant of human history. Before there were nations to defend, there were tribes, clans, families. Apaches in the old days lived in temporary brush shelters, resembling brown igloos with a long entrance passageway. The man slept in the entrance passage, the woman and children in the main body of the shelter. Anyone entering had to get past the man, the warrior.
Tribes and peoples of any and all times and places honored their warriors, for the survival of The People depended upon the courage and tenacity of the men.
We modern Americans tend to think peace is the normal state of humanity, interupted by occasional war. Many Americans even think that wars somehow will not involve us if we give no provocation. Perhaps, we dream, with enough food and education and the spread of democracy or construction of international organizations wars will cease. So we dreamed in 1918, when at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month The Armistice took effect. But, we learned differently on December 7, 1941. And Armistice Day became Veteran's Day to include those who fought in another war after The War to End All Wars.
So it continues. Our nation will remain free only so long as we have courageous and tenacious warriors, men who will put themselves between those who sleep and danger. Men who think that home and family and country are worth dying for. In the case of the United States, that liberty is worth dying for. G.K. Chesterton, criticizing the descent of England into merely commercial enterprise, wrote: Men must in the last resort love it; for the simple reason that men must in the last resort die for it. No community or constitution can survive and retain its identity at all, that has not in the minds of its subjects enough of an ideal identity, to appear to them in certain extremes of peril as the vision of something to be saved. It is on that ideal, inhering in the reality, that every state will depend when there is a struggle of life and death. And we will have such warriors only so long as warriors are honored, and remembered.
Tonight at the Veterans' Day pow-wow put on by the Comanche Indian Veterans Association veterans were honored individually, called into the place of honor during the dance, one at a time. Between dances they were called to the east side of the circle, in small groups, and given gifts. Warriors honored for their service. It does not take much imagination to see other places, other times--the drums and dancing and honor given to warriors: red skin or white skin or black skin or yellow skin or brown skin.
War has been a constant of human history. Before there were nations to defend, there were tribes, clans, families. Apaches in the old days lived in temporary brush shelters, resembling brown igloos with a long entrance passageway. The man slept in the entrance passage, the woman and children in the main body of the shelter. Anyone entering had to get past the man, the warrior.
Tribes and peoples of any and all times and places honored their warriors, for the survival of The People depended upon the courage and tenacity of the men.
We modern Americans tend to think peace is the normal state of humanity, interupted by occasional war. Many Americans even think that wars somehow will not involve us if we give no provocation. Perhaps, we dream, with enough food and education and the spread of democracy or construction of international organizations wars will cease. So we dreamed in 1918, when at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month The Armistice took effect. But, we learned differently on December 7, 1941. And Armistice Day became Veteran's Day to include those who fought in another war after The War to End All Wars.
So it continues. Our nation will remain free only so long as we have courageous and tenacious warriors, men who will put themselves between those who sleep and danger. Men who think that home and family and country are worth dying for. In the case of the United States, that liberty is worth dying for. G.K. Chesterton, criticizing the descent of England into merely commercial enterprise, wrote: Men must in the last resort love it; for the simple reason that men must in the last resort die for it. No community or constitution can survive and retain its identity at all, that has not in the minds of its subjects enough of an ideal identity, to appear to them in certain extremes of peril as the vision of something to be saved. It is on that ideal, inhering in the reality, that every state will depend when there is a struggle of life and death. And we will have such warriors only so long as warriors are honored, and remembered.
Norman Mailer is dead. AP story here. Author of many books including The Naked and the Dead, The Executioner's Song, The Armies of the Night, and Harlot's Ghost.
He was An Important Novelist back when that phrase meant something, when people expectantly awaited the next book from Mailer, or Vidal, or Updyke. Novels no longer have a big place in contemporary culture. People await movies, or television shows, or video games. I do not think I am simply being a Luddite or curmudgeon when I say it is a shame.
A good novel immerses the reader in a slice of the universe, real or imagined, in a way that a movie cannot. Movies are flat. The nature of their medium prohibits the kind of richly detailed characters, events, and issues that one can find in a rich novel. Compare Moby Dick to any movie made from it, or read Rabbit, Run then watch the movie (to take nothing away from James Caan). Read a James Joyce novel and try to write a screenplay.
And, novels can provoke sustained thought in a way movies cannot. We can pause a novel any time by lifting our eyes from the page. We can reflect on a word, a phrase, an idea for a moment, a cup of coffee, or an entire day, and lose nothing. Good reading is an active interaction between reader and author, beyond the experience of a movie.
Authors like himself, he said more than once, had become anachronisms as people focused on television and young writers aspired to screenwriting or journalism.
When he was young, Mailer said, "fiction was everything. The novel, the big novel, the driving force. We all wanted to be Hemingway ... I don't think the same thing can be said anymore. I don't think my work has inspired any writer, not the way Hemingway inspired me."
He was An Important Novelist back when that phrase meant something, when people expectantly awaited the next book from Mailer, or Vidal, or Updyke. Novels no longer have a big place in contemporary culture. People await movies, or television shows, or video games. I do not think I am simply being a Luddite or curmudgeon when I say it is a shame.
A good novel immerses the reader in a slice of the universe, real or imagined, in a way that a movie cannot. Movies are flat. The nature of their medium prohibits the kind of richly detailed characters, events, and issues that one can find in a rich novel. Compare Moby Dick to any movie made from it, or read Rabbit, Run then watch the movie (to take nothing away from James Caan). Read a James Joyce novel and try to write a screenplay.
And, novels can provoke sustained thought in a way movies cannot. We can pause a novel any time by lifting our eyes from the page. We can reflect on a word, a phrase, an idea for a moment, a cup of coffee, or an entire day, and lose nothing. Good reading is an active interaction between reader and author, beyond the experience of a movie.
Authors like himself, he said more than once, had become anachronisms as people focused on television and young writers aspired to screenwriting or journalism.
When he was young, Mailer said, "fiction was everything. The novel, the big novel, the driving force. We all wanted to be Hemingway ... I don't think the same thing can be said anymore. I don't think my work has inspired any writer, not the way Hemingway inspired me."
Category: Campaign 2008.6
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Does the best candidate win? Sometimes--but raw political sex appeal is not everything.
Slate's John Dickerson is doing splendid work covering Campaign 2008. This week he reports from Iowa:
Barack Obama is "funny and passionate," regularly "connecting with his big audiences," leaving them on their "feet...chanting with [for] him." In contrast, Hillary Clinton continues to deliver "solid performances in front of enthusiastic audiences," but her outings don't enliven, empower, and inspire the way they do with Obama.
Dickerson relays this question he found to be increasingly prevalent in Iowa: "Why isn't he killing her?"
The Slate article in full here (and an NPR segment from Friday featuring Dickerson's observation here).
The Power of Obama: more personally.
A few weeks ago, my five-year-old and I were watching (via C-SPAN) an Obama campaign appearance in Boston (video archives here). My young son is a fairly astute political observer (see his previous assessment of George Bush here). His reaction? By the end of the speech, he was jumping up and down on the bed, pumping his arms in the air, and screaming: "I want to be an American." Intermittently he would ask, "What's his name, Daddy?" And then: "I want him to be president."
Fire it Up! Ready to Go!
Let's go change the world.
Can this guy win a national presidential election? You bet!
Obama is still relatively unknown and a rookie, but those who see him as the most dynamic young face in American politics since John Kennedy have it exactly right.
Now for a dose of reality. Does the best candidate always get the job? No. Can this man be stopped? Yes.
In some important aspects that transcend natural talent, Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy. JFK had the backing of his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who was a very rich and powerful person with plenty of political experience and connections. The Kennedy organization attracted the best people money could buy and employed a dedicated, energetic, and skilled immediate family. JFK's main obstacle for the nomination in 1960 was Hubert Humphrey, who was a Democratic Party stalwart and a nice fellow. Nevertheless, he proved relatively easy to steamroll in West Virginia (the "Super Tuesday" of that campaign).
Obama? He has Dick Durbin and Oprah Winfrey. And Hillary Clinton is no Hubert Humphrey. Hill has Bill, an asset of mythic proportions, and, more importantly, the incredibly experienced, talented, savvy, and ruthless Clinton brain trust.
John Dickerson answers his own question with great insight. When it comes to the complicated Iowa caucus system (as well as the daunting national primary campaign), the Clintons are pros while the Obama team looks comparatively amateurish.
In other words, organization, name recognition, and money, more often than not, determine the difference between winning and losing in the primaries. Clinton holds the advantage in all three of these categories.
Can Obama still catch fire? Yes. But he needs to do it quickly. Remember, this fellow has been running for president for more than ten months. However, as I have said before, Republicans looking toward November should not indulge in too much schadenfreude at the expense of Hillary Clinton. If nominated, Hillary can (and probably will) win in November. But Obama is a juggernaut, who can not only win--but also bring about a massive realignment of American politics.
Another question for another time: Why doesn't Obama try harder? That is, what is holding Obama back from a launching into a full-out assault on Hillary Clinton? Stay tuned…
Slate's John Dickerson is doing splendid work covering Campaign 2008. This week he reports from Iowa:
Barack Obama is "funny and passionate," regularly "connecting with his big audiences," leaving them on their "feet...chanting with [for] him." In contrast, Hillary Clinton continues to deliver "solid performances in front of enthusiastic audiences," but her outings don't enliven, empower, and inspire the way they do with Obama.
Dickerson relays this question he found to be increasingly prevalent in Iowa: "Why isn't he killing her?"
The Slate article in full here (and an NPR segment from Friday featuring Dickerson's observation here).
The Power of Obama: more personally.
A few weeks ago, my five-year-old and I were watching (via C-SPAN) an Obama campaign appearance in Boston (video archives here). My young son is a fairly astute political observer (see his previous assessment of George Bush here). His reaction? By the end of the speech, he was jumping up and down on the bed, pumping his arms in the air, and screaming: "I want to be an American." Intermittently he would ask, "What's his name, Daddy?" And then: "I want him to be president."
Fire it Up! Ready to Go!
Let's go change the world.
Can this guy win a national presidential election? You bet!
Obama is still relatively unknown and a rookie, but those who see him as the most dynamic young face in American politics since John Kennedy have it exactly right.
Now for a dose of reality. Does the best candidate always get the job? No. Can this man be stopped? Yes.
In some important aspects that transcend natural talent, Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy. JFK had the backing of his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who was a very rich and powerful person with plenty of political experience and connections. The Kennedy organization attracted the best people money could buy and employed a dedicated, energetic, and skilled immediate family. JFK's main obstacle for the nomination in 1960 was Hubert Humphrey, who was a Democratic Party stalwart and a nice fellow. Nevertheless, he proved relatively easy to steamroll in West Virginia (the "Super Tuesday" of that campaign).
Obama? He has Dick Durbin and Oprah Winfrey. And Hillary Clinton is no Hubert Humphrey. Hill has Bill, an asset of mythic proportions, and, more importantly, the incredibly experienced, talented, savvy, and ruthless Clinton brain trust.
John Dickerson answers his own question with great insight. When it comes to the complicated Iowa caucus system (as well as the daunting national primary campaign), the Clintons are pros while the Obama team looks comparatively amateurish.
In other words, organization, name recognition, and money, more often than not, determine the difference between winning and losing in the primaries. Clinton holds the advantage in all three of these categories.
Can Obama still catch fire? Yes. But he needs to do it quickly. Remember, this fellow has been running for president for more than ten months. However, as I have said before, Republicans looking toward November should not indulge in too much schadenfreude at the expense of Hillary Clinton. If nominated, Hillary can (and probably will) win in November. But Obama is a juggernaut, who can not only win--but also bring about a massive realignment of American politics.
Another question for another time: Why doesn't Obama try harder? That is, what is holding Obama back from a launching into a full-out assault on Hillary Clinton? Stay tuned…
09/11: Jarrell McCracken, 1927-2007
From the Waco Tribune-Herald :
"Jarrell McCracken, 79, pioneer of the Christian entertainment industry, died Wednesday after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease."
"McCracken founded Word Inc. in Waco in 1951 and turned the company from a one-man operation into one of the world’s largest makers of religious recordings and publications."
"The company that began in McCracken’s Waco kitchen burgeoned into a worldwide operation employing more than 400 people. Names such as Amy Grant, Sandi Patti and George Beverly Shea dot Word’s roster of recording artists. The publishing division boasts prominent names such as Billy Graham, Ruth Carter Stapleton, Dallas Cowboys great Roger Staubach and legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden."
"In 1974, ABC bought out McCracken’s share of the company. He remained on as president, however, until 1986, when he resigned amid differences of opinion regarding management style and direction."
McCracken will be remembered for his love for family, the people he met, Baylor Univeristy, and his church.
Jarrell McCracken, rest in peace.
"Jarrell McCracken, 79, pioneer of the Christian entertainment industry, died Wednesday after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease."
"McCracken founded Word Inc. in Waco in 1951 and turned the company from a one-man operation into one of the world’s largest makers of religious recordings and publications."
"The company that began in McCracken’s Waco kitchen burgeoned into a worldwide operation employing more than 400 people. Names such as Amy Grant, Sandi Patti and George Beverly Shea dot Word’s roster of recording artists. The publishing division boasts prominent names such as Billy Graham, Ruth Carter Stapleton, Dallas Cowboys great Roger Staubach and legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden."
"In 1974, ABC bought out McCracken’s share of the company. He remained on as president, however, until 1986, when he resigned amid differences of opinion regarding management style and direction."
McCracken will be remembered for his love for family, the people he met, Baylor Univeristy, and his church.
Jarrell McCracken, rest in peace.
