Improving Business Tax Competitiveness - For those interested in the Fair Tax or tax reform in general, you might find it interesting that the Treasury Department just released a study looking into something very similar.
Why the BCS Doesn't Necessarily Suck - I've been screaming this for a long time. And while I hate that a worthy team like Auburn of a few years ago may get left out, I also think that what makes college football great is the importance of every single game, something you don't find in any other sport, college or pro. The article is from the head writer of the best college football site on the web. If you've been using ESPN or SI to get your information, go to CFN this fall. You'll be glad you did.
Free Printable Staff Paper - For those of you that play guitar or some other instrument, this is great. I tabbed the song Falling Slowly from the movie Once using it. By the way, the movie and the soundtrack are the absolute best movie and album I have seen this year. Not that I have seen many with a new baby in the house. But I'm just saying don't judge a movie by its cover.
New Testament Exegesis Bibliography - This is a fantastic resource from Denver Seminary. It is a complete library of recommended items for New Testament study. From the best books on textual criticism to theology to commentaries. Especially if you're a pastor, this is a great place to start and refer back to while building your library.
Garfield Without Garfield - If you haven't seen this yet, it's worth a look. Very funny. There are just a few posted at the link, but you can follow the links to get to the full page. Here's what they had to say over at The Crossed Pond: "Who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolor disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life? Friends, meet Jon Arbuckle. Let’s laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against lonliness and methamphetamine addiction in a quiet American suburb."
The Case for Foreclosures - Think that bailouts during the mortgage "crisis" are a good idea? Steven Landsburg says that one family's sorrow is another's joy. Count me as one of those who has actually been given an opportunity because of the housing slump. The bailouts indirectly hurt my chances at getting a house, something that I and many other long time renters are working very hard for.
Crisis, what Crisis? - George Will also mocks the concept of a mortgage crisis in a WaPo op-ed.
The Subprime Primer - Sticking to the mortgage theme, if you're confused about the current economic events, check out this great stick figure animation complete with four letter words that boils it all down to humorous layman's terms.
The 1000 True Fans Project - Joe Carter has a great post about one possible business model for the future. Back in the days of the renaissance, you had powerful patrons such as the Medici's employing hordes of artists to supply their wants. The many supplied the few. Now in art and music, you have a few big-name bands supplying the many consumers. But Joe Carter points out that all you really need are about 1000 true fans who will gobble up everything you produce and pay a premium for it. It seems to me that Radiohead relied on a similar approach when, while releasing In Rainbows for free, they charged around $70 for the collector's edition box set. Read the article to get a better idea of what he's saying. This could be used as a model not only for artists and musicians, but also authors.
Two Questions About Prostitution - In the wake of the Eliot Spitzer story, Andrew Sullivan asks two important questions about the illegality of prostitution. It's a good point and as a classical liberal, I'm having a hard time arguing with the rhetorical point he is trying to make.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
#170 The 2008 Braves
The Braves are off to another season filled with hope and like a dog to its vomit I have been glued to the television or radio and can't miss a single pitch. I've been especially excited about Jair Jurrjens (pictured below) who we acquired from the Tigers for Edgar Renteria in the offseason. I was worried to see Renteria go because he hit for average and had improved his defense during his time in Atlanta. But Frank Wren's first move as GM turned out to be a great one.
Yunel Escobar has more than made up for the loss of Renteria with better range on defense and equal if not actually better offensive numbers so far. But what has really been a surprise has been the play of Jurrjens who has been incredible this year. I believe he is now 3-1 with an ERA between 3 and 4. But what I like is that he keeps us in games. He got himself in trouble tonight by throwing an astonishing 45 pitches in the third inning alone. He walk three runs in due to a pitch called for a ball that should have been called a strike. That would've ended the inning before he started walking guys with the bases loaded. Because of the horrible calls and that and another pitch, Bobby Cox added another ejection to his collection after Jurrjens threw his hands up in the air after a particularly poor call by the ump.
But Jurjenns went on to pitch solidly through the 6th allowing a mere two hits to a solid Mets lineup and the Braves ended up moving a game above .500. So with Huddy, Smoltzy, and now Jurrjens anchoring the rotation and Glavine and a certain other pitcher who will remain nameless about to come off the DL, we potentially have a solid five. Blane Boyer has been lights out as well. That's another big story for the Braves this year. And we get should get Mike Gonzalez back in mid-May.
Of course, I can't forget to mention the bats other than Escobar. Gregor Blanco is another nice surprise is hitting nearly .500 this season as a pinch hitter and filling in for Mark Kotsay the last two nights. Chipper is playing out of his mind leading the major leagues in average and near the top in every other category. Teixeira is a consistently slow starter so there's a lot of upside this season for a guy like him if you know his stats thus far in his young career. And the "Baby Braves of 2005" which include McCann, Francoeur, Diaz, and Johnson are turning in solid performances.
So all in all, I'm excited as always this time of year and am looking forward to another season with the hope that springs eternal in the heart of every sports fan. And if the Braves should let me down, I've always got the Dawgs who are already getting a lot of preseason hype this year. That worries me a bit because, as has been said by others, Mark Richt always performs better when he's flying under the radar, with the 2007 campaign being a prime example. But we've got a secret weapon this year. His name: Knowshon Moreno. He can cut like Barry Sanders and has the motor and heart of David Pollack. The man, LITERALLY, jumps out of the pile and runs back to the huddle on every play. I'll post more about him and the Dawgs once Fall rolls around. For now, Go Braves!
Yunel Escobar has more than made up for the loss of Renteria with better range on defense and equal if not actually better offensive numbers so far. But what has really been a surprise has been the play of Jurrjens who has been incredible this year. I believe he is now 3-1 with an ERA between 3 and 4. But what I like is that he keeps us in games. He got himself in trouble tonight by throwing an astonishing 45 pitches in the third inning alone. He walk three runs in due to a pitch called for a ball that should have been called a strike. That would've ended the inning before he started walking guys with the bases loaded. Because of the horrible calls and that and another pitch, Bobby Cox added another ejection to his collection after Jurrjens threw his hands up in the air after a particularly poor call by the ump.
But Jurjenns went on to pitch solidly through the 6th allowing a mere two hits to a solid Mets lineup and the Braves ended up moving a game above .500. So with Huddy, Smoltzy, and now Jurrjens anchoring the rotation and Glavine and a certain other pitcher who will remain nameless about to come off the DL, we potentially have a solid five. Blane Boyer has been lights out as well. That's another big story for the Braves this year. And we get should get Mike Gonzalez back in mid-May.
Of course, I can't forget to mention the bats other than Escobar. Gregor Blanco is another nice surprise is hitting nearly .500 this season as a pinch hitter and filling in for Mark Kotsay the last two nights. Chipper is playing out of his mind leading the major leagues in average and near the top in every other category. Teixeira is a consistently slow starter so there's a lot of upside this season for a guy like him if you know his stats thus far in his young career. And the "Baby Braves of 2005" which include McCann, Francoeur, Diaz, and Johnson are turning in solid performances.
So all in all, I'm excited as always this time of year and am looking forward to another season with the hope that springs eternal in the heart of every sports fan. And if the Braves should let me down, I've always got the Dawgs who are already getting a lot of preseason hype this year. That worries me a bit because, as has been said by others, Mark Richt always performs better when he's flying under the radar, with the 2007 campaign being a prime example. But we've got a secret weapon this year. His name: Knowshon Moreno. He can cut like Barry Sanders and has the motor and heart of David Pollack. The man, LITERALLY, jumps out of the pile and runs back to the huddle on every play. I'll post more about him and the Dawgs once Fall rolls around. For now, Go Braves!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
#169 Parenting Advice from Atticus Finch
Uncle Jack Finch, pointing out Scout's potty mouth to Atticus while Scout was secretly listening around the corner while she should've been in bed, says:
"Her use of bathroom invective leaves nothing to the imagination. But she doesn't know the meaning of half of what she says--she asked me what a whore-lady was..."
Atticus: "Did you tell her?"
Jack: "No, I told her about Lord Melbourne."
Atticus: "Jack! When a child asks you something, answer him, for goodness' sake. But don't make a production of it. Children are children, but they can spot an evasion quicker than adults, and evasion simply muddles 'em. No... you had the right answer this afternoon, but the wrong reasons. Bad language is a stage all children go through, and it dies with time when they learn they're not attracting attention with it.
...
Atticus: "Jen Louise? Go to bed."
Scout (narrator): "...I never figured out how Atticus knew that I was listening, and it was not until many years later that I realized he wanted me to hear every word he said."
Moral: Be sincere with your children.
"Her use of bathroom invective leaves nothing to the imagination. But she doesn't know the meaning of half of what she says--she asked me what a whore-lady was..."
Atticus: "Did you tell her?"
Jack: "No, I told her about Lord Melbourne."
Atticus: "Jack! When a child asks you something, answer him, for goodness' sake. But don't make a production of it. Children are children, but they can spot an evasion quicker than adults, and evasion simply muddles 'em. No... you had the right answer this afternoon, but the wrong reasons. Bad language is a stage all children go through, and it dies with time when they learn they're not attracting attention with it.
...
Atticus: "Jen Louise? Go to bed."
Scout (narrator): "...I never figured out how Atticus knew that I was listening, and it was not until many years later that I realized he wanted me to hear every word he said."
Moral: Be sincere with your children.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
#168 Obama, Wright, and a Party Off the Rails
Responding to an email regarding Obama's comments on abortion, the Jeremiah Wright situation, and my feelings on the Republican party over the last 8 years, I said the following:
I do agree that his comment [regarding pregnancy as punishment in reference to his single-digit aged unwed daughters] sounds horrible. And I do not agree with him on abortion whatsoever. But if you've read what Barack Obama has written and spoken, you get a very different picture of the man and realize how easily 8 words can be taken out of context. Yes, I'm as pro-life as I ever was, and Barack Obama is pro-choice. But I'm also tired of being a slave to the Republican party over this one issue. There are far too many others that this administration and party has bungled over the last 8 years while paying lip service to the pro-life cause. At this point we know how Bob Barr feels about the current administration. Now here's Newt Gingrich, a traditional conservative, on the Bush administration and the Republican party who is now saying the right thing, though many years too late:
As far as the torture regime is concerned, new details come to light every day and it's appaling how far the administration has gone right under our noses. Here's a guy who is no left-liberal by any means, former army officer and chief of staff to Colin Powell, US secretary of state at the time the torture program was set up, Larry Wilkerson:
If you don't know who Yoo and Addington are especially, you should look up what they have done to our country right under most people's noses, while were asleep at the wheel reading about bitter-gate, elitism and the rest of the "swift-boating" of Barack Obama. Literally, appalling details are coming out by the minute and we may not see the full light of how far we've gone until years from now: The latest two stories coming to light just this week are that top Bush aides pushed for Guantanamo torture and used the network tv show 24 (which is a torture happy series which operates on the silly, unrealistic premise that there is a ticking time bomb and you have 5 minutes to stop it) for inspiration.
Conservative from all over the place are coming out in support of Barack Obama, including Susan Eisenhower, grandaughter of the former president and lifelong conservative. Bush has just set the record this week for the worst approval rating (30%) of any president in 70 years of taking the poll. Now, when he was at around 70% shortly after 9/11, we could say, well, it's obviously just the far left extremists intent on hating Bush no matter what he does who are going to disapprove. When it got down to 50% we could say, well, it's partisan, Republicans support him and Democrats don't. Now with a 70% disapproval, we can't just assume that 70% of America are Democrats intent on hating Bush. No that's 20% of the country approximately, who identify themselves as Republicans who disapprove of what he's done. That's two-fifths of all Republicans or right-leaning people.
Now I don't dislike John McCain. I'm excited that it looks like we are going to have a race this November that for the first time I can remember in politics will pit two genuinely decent people against one another. We will actually have a civil campaign and either choice will be far better than the last two presidents on either side of the aisle.
You really should read Martin Marty's defense of Jeremiah Wright to gain some perspective on the man. Marty, one of the best writer's on religion in America, does not excuse the comments of Wright, comments which Obama has repudiated, but you will learn this, which the television news will not tell you about:
This is a man the television news right calls an anti-American, a former marine who volunteered to serve his country in a war he opposed. Wright has far more patriotic credentials than me and certainly more than any of the talking-head pundits. And since when was it unpatriotic to call your country out for its evils? I'm sure that would be news to the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said,
How far we've come from the conservatism and patriotism that he had in mind. I challenge you to read the full Wright sermon which so many television pundits are taking bits and pieces from and playing to death. I'm going to paste it at the bottom of this email and I think it's worth a read.
But let's face it, McCain's got Robertson and Hagee in his corner, so they're about even on crazy pastors. One has repudiated the views of his supporters, the other has remained silent. You know which is which.
If you want to see how much of a partisan bias the media has when it comes to pastors, listen to this exchange on Sean Hannity's show, first with regard to Wright:
HANNITY: Reverend Lawson, with all that we've heard from Reverend Wright, do you support everything he has said?
LAWSON: Of course not. I don't support everything anybody says, even members of my own family. But I do recognize him as a friend, as a prophetic preacher and as a person who has been extremely valuable, not only in Chicago but nationwide, almost globally. He is a good man.
HANNITY: He is a good man that says G.D. America, the U.S. KKK of America, all of these statements. Do you think that's coming from a good man?
Now hear Hannity, defending Falwell, shortly after his death:
HANNITY: I'm sure you're perfect in your life and that you've never made any mistakes.
HITCHENS: I've never committed treason like that. I don't believe in the sincerity of his apology...
HANNITY: I knew Reverend Falwell, Christopher. I know the good work that this man has done.
HITCHENS: Tell me about it.
Blatant, blatant, blatant. The partisan bias evident when comparing the two exchanges doesn't get any more obvious than that.
I strongly suggest you read Andrew Sullivan's article called Goodbye to All That about the candidacy of Barack Obama.
I can support the Republicans until I'm blue in the face, but at some point you have to stand up and say wrong is wrong. At some point, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you spend a whole life voting for evil. If you want the Republican party to change, elect Barack Obama. If you want the Republican party to continue to go off the rails of conservatism and into the tank like Gingrich, Barr, Paul, and many others know it has been, then keep voting them into power. Parties only change when they have a break from power. They only change when they have incentive to change. They need what essentially amounts to a time-out. They need to go sit in the corner for four or eight years and think about what they've done.
As I've said before, after these last 7 years (since 9/11) of seemingly infinite corruption scandals, big spending, warrantless wire-tapping, disregard for the constitution and the rule of law, torture, nation-building, moral hypocrisy, and saber-rattling I've had it up to here with Cheney, Yoo, Addington and the other neocons who have taken over the party, and with the partisans like Rove, Ingraham, and Coulter who have made the party more divisive and sickening than the Democrats, if that was even possible. I want my party back. I look forward to the day when we get it back, when the prodigal son returns, but for now he must be punished, because he's off playing with pigs.
Here's the Wright sermon in full. Decide for yourself how much taking snippets out of context due to the lack of air time (not to mention partisan agenda) that television news networks have can distort a message. This is a message from a Christian brother however much we may disagree with his politics. And I for one found myself saying a few amens throughout the sermon and saying, "Damn people, read the fucking primary sources!" Quit getting your information second-hand, especially from either the right or left-wing media punditocracy.
So ends Wright's sermon.
I do agree that his comment [regarding pregnancy as punishment in reference to his single-digit aged unwed daughters] sounds horrible. And I do not agree with him on abortion whatsoever. But if you've read what Barack Obama has written and spoken, you get a very different picture of the man and realize how easily 8 words can be taken out of context. Yes, I'm as pro-life as I ever was, and Barack Obama is pro-choice. But I'm also tired of being a slave to the Republican party over this one issue. There are far too many others that this administration and party has bungled over the last 8 years while paying lip service to the pro-life cause. At this point we know how Bob Barr feels about the current administration. Now here's Newt Gingrich, a traditional conservative, on the Bush administration and the Republican party who is now saying the right thing, though many years too late:
"They went off the rails. That's it. They took a majority that took 16 years to build and they destroyed it ... There was a fundamental misunderstanding about how to govern. The concept of red versus blue is a tactic, not a strategy. In the long run, in order to mobilize your base, you tend to become more intense and your positions become more vitriolic, and you drive away the independents. Then you are no longer a majority,"
As far as the torture regime is concerned, new details come to light every day and it's appaling how far the administration has gone right under our noses. Here's a guy who is no left-liberal by any means, former army officer and chief of staff to Colin Powell, US secretary of state at the time the torture program was set up, Larry Wilkerson:
"Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and - at the apex - Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court."
If you don't know who Yoo and Addington are especially, you should look up what they have done to our country right under most people's noses, while were asleep at the wheel reading about bitter-gate, elitism and the rest of the "swift-boating" of Barack Obama. Literally, appalling details are coming out by the minute and we may not see the full light of how far we've gone until years from now: The latest two stories coming to light just this week are that top Bush aides pushed for Guantanamo torture and used the network tv show 24 (which is a torture happy series which operates on the silly, unrealistic premise that there is a ticking time bomb and you have 5 minutes to stop it) for inspiration.
Conservative from all over the place are coming out in support of Barack Obama, including Susan Eisenhower, grandaughter of the former president and lifelong conservative. Bush has just set the record this week for the worst approval rating (30%) of any president in 70 years of taking the poll. Now, when he was at around 70% shortly after 9/11, we could say, well, it's obviously just the far left extremists intent on hating Bush no matter what he does who are going to disapprove. When it got down to 50% we could say, well, it's partisan, Republicans support him and Democrats don't. Now with a 70% disapproval, we can't just assume that 70% of America are Democrats intent on hating Bush. No that's 20% of the country approximately, who identify themselves as Republicans who disapprove of what he's done. That's two-fifths of all Republicans or right-leaning people.
Now I don't dislike John McCain. I'm excited that it looks like we are going to have a race this November that for the first time I can remember in politics will pit two genuinely decent people against one another. We will actually have a civil campaign and either choice will be far better than the last two presidents on either side of the aisle.
You really should read Martin Marty's defense of Jeremiah Wright to gain some perspective on the man. Marty, one of the best writer's on religion in America, does not excuse the comments of Wright, comments which Obama has repudiated, but you will learn this, which the television news will not tell you about:
"In the early 1960s, at a time when many young people were being radicalized by the Vietnam War, Wright left college and volunteered to join the United States Marine Corps. After three years as a marine, he chose to serve three more as a naval medical technician, during which time he received several White House commendations. He came to Chicago to study not long after Martin Luther King Jr.'s murder in 1968, the U.S. bombing campaign in Cambodia in 1969, and the shooting of students at Kent State University in 1970."
This is a man the television news right calls an anti-American, a former marine who volunteered to serve his country in a war he opposed. Wright has far more patriotic credentials than me and certainly more than any of the talking-head pundits. And since when was it unpatriotic to call your country out for its evils? I'm sure that would be news to the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said,
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.”
How far we've come from the conservatism and patriotism that he had in mind. I challenge you to read the full Wright sermon which so many television pundits are taking bits and pieces from and playing to death. I'm going to paste it at the bottom of this email and I think it's worth a read.
But let's face it, McCain's got Robertson and Hagee in his corner, so they're about even on crazy pastors. One has repudiated the views of his supporters, the other has remained silent. You know which is which.
If you want to see how much of a partisan bias the media has when it comes to pastors, listen to this exchange on Sean Hannity's show, first with regard to Wright:
HANNITY: Reverend Lawson, with all that we've heard from Reverend Wright, do you support everything he has said?
LAWSON: Of course not. I don't support everything anybody says, even members of my own family. But I do recognize him as a friend, as a prophetic preacher and as a person who has been extremely valuable, not only in Chicago but nationwide, almost globally. He is a good man.
HANNITY: He is a good man that says G.D. America, the U.S. KKK of America, all of these statements. Do you think that's coming from a good man?
Now hear Hannity, defending Falwell, shortly after his death:
HANNITY: I'm sure you're perfect in your life and that you've never made any mistakes.
HITCHENS: I've never committed treason like that. I don't believe in the sincerity of his apology...
HANNITY: I knew Reverend Falwell, Christopher. I know the good work that this man has done.
HITCHENS: Tell me about it.
Blatant, blatant, blatant. The partisan bias evident when comparing the two exchanges doesn't get any more obvious than that.
I strongly suggest you read Andrew Sullivan's article called Goodbye to All That about the candidacy of Barack Obama.
I can support the Republicans until I'm blue in the face, but at some point you have to stand up and say wrong is wrong. At some point, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you spend a whole life voting for evil. If you want the Republican party to change, elect Barack Obama. If you want the Republican party to continue to go off the rails of conservatism and into the tank like Gingrich, Barr, Paul, and many others know it has been, then keep voting them into power. Parties only change when they have a break from power. They only change when they have incentive to change. They need what essentially amounts to a time-out. They need to go sit in the corner for four or eight years and think about what they've done.
As I've said before, after these last 7 years (since 9/11) of seemingly infinite corruption scandals, big spending, warrantless wire-tapping, disregard for the constitution and the rule of law, torture, nation-building, moral hypocrisy, and saber-rattling I've had it up to here with Cheney, Yoo, Addington and the other neocons who have taken over the party, and with the partisans like Rove, Ingraham, and Coulter who have made the party more divisive and sickening than the Democrats, if that was even possible. I want my party back. I look forward to the day when we get it back, when the prodigal son returns, but for now he must be punished, because he's off playing with pigs.
Here's the Wright sermon in full. Decide for yourself how much taking snippets out of context due to the lack of air time (not to mention partisan agenda) that television news networks have can distort a message. This is a message from a Christian brother however much we may disagree with his politics. And I for one found myself saying a few amens throughout the sermon and saying, "Damn people, read the fucking primary sources!" Quit getting your information second-hand, especially from either the right or left-wing media punditocracy.
"Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God's guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do -- paybacks.
There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created. And I want you to notice very carefully this next move. One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.
Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine: [rising voice] "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks."[lower voice] The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon. How shall we sing the Lord's song? If I forget the order ... The people of faith, have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]--these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple, burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents -- [low voice] the babies, the babies.
Blessed are they who dash your baby’s brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.
Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes.
Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don't lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, "Faith footnote." [Voices: "Faith footnote"]
[Begin faith footnote]
I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) --a white man-- he pointed out-- an ambassador-- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.
We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism--we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working father. [fullest voice] We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks.
[fullest voice] We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard working people --mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home. [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.
America's chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.
[lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.
Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days. Turn back to your neighbor, and say, "Footnote is over." [Voices: "Footnote is over."]
[End Faith Footnote]
[Gentle voice] Now, now. C'mon back to my question to the Lord, "What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act. I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey. No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport. On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the destinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn't even get her for Mr. Radford's father's funeral. And I asked God, "What should our response be?
I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone-- no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping. [plaintiff high voice] And I asked the Lord, "What should our response be?" I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC. But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world, a different terror. This is a different reality. What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things. Let me share them with you quickly and I'm gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.
Number one: The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father's death, God showed me that this was a time for me to examine my relationship with God. MY own relationship with God-- personal relationship with God.
I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency? It showed up in full force. Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week. I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week. [inaudible]
But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination. But the Lord said, "How is "our" relationship doing Jeremiah? How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately? How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?
This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God. Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show? Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do for the sake of eternity? [voice rising] This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God -- self examination.
So ends Wright's sermon.
Monday, April 21, 2008
#167 The Purpose of Blogging II
Alan Jacobs, writing in the May 2008 issue of First Things about the earliest ancestor of the blog, the commonplace book, quotes Jonathan Swift as he says,
That pretty much sums up what I use my blog for. It's a personal record of stories, links, pictures, quotes, and thoughts, 99% of which are not my own.
He goes on,
But he ends with a caution for those of us who spend too much time just logging tidbits and amassing information,
"It was probably inevitable that commonplace books would eventually blend with another early-modern invention, the journal. By 1720, when Jonathan Swift writes A Letter of Advice to a Young Poet and recommends the keeping of a commonplace book, he seems to have something very like a journal in mind: 'A book of this sort, is in the nature of a supplemental memory, or a record of what occurs remarkable in every day's reading or conversation. There you enter not only your own original thoughts (which, hundred to one, are few and insignificant) but such of other men as you think fit to make your own, by entering them there.'"
That pretty much sums up what I use my blog for. It's a personal record of stories, links, pictures, quotes, and thoughts, 99% of which are not my own.
He goes on,
"This is not primarily an act of courtesy to my readers, of whom I can't possibly have many, but rather an act of intellectual discipline on my part, whereby I hope to capture for my later reading self the significance of what I've posted."
But he ends with a caution for those of us who spend too much time just logging tidbits and amassing information,
"The task of adding new lines and sentences and paragraphs to one's collection can become an ever tempting substitute for reading, marking, learning, and inwardly digesting what's already there. And wisdom that is not frequently revisited is wisdom wasted."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
#166 Interesting Links XVIII
Talk Origins - One of the most highly recommended sites on evolution.
Life Evolving - Another recommended site on evolution.
The 50 Most Loathsome People of 2007 - This is hilarious. It's written by a far left publication but everybody will find somebody to loathe. Read it.
Study: No Real Link Between Violent Video Games and Aggressive Behavior - I've been saying this for a while now. My point is that video games are violent because mankind is violent, not the other way around.
Candidates Views on Executive Power - Executive power is probably the most important issue for me in any presidential election. The candidates were each sent a survey and here is where the candidates say they stand on the issue. Giuliani did not respond. Surprise, surprise.
Life Evolving - Another recommended site on evolution.
The 50 Most Loathsome People of 2007 - This is hilarious. It's written by a far left publication but everybody will find somebody to loathe. Read it.
Study: No Real Link Between Violent Video Games and Aggressive Behavior - I've been saying this for a while now. My point is that video games are violent because mankind is violent, not the other way around.
Candidates Views on Executive Power - Executive power is probably the most important issue for me in any presidential election. The candidates were each sent a survey and here is where the candidates say they stand on the issue. Giuliani did not respond. Surprise, surprise.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
#165 The Difference Between Bad and Evil
CNN.com has a story about a would-be school shooter whose plot was discovered by his parents before he could act. I think the story was published because of the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. When those shootings took place, I wrote about them here. When I read the new CNN story the other day, I was able to hone in on the difference between school shooters on the one hand and children who make fun of school shooters and often participate unknowingly in driving them to the breaking point. Here is a quote from the Virginia Tech school shooter that I posted before.
The man's soul was clearly destroyed. Here was my angry response to the media commentary on the shooter:
I just noticed that I used the word evil in that quote, but I think the new article on the would-be shooter from CNN better hones in on the difference between bad and evil.
It's telling that Richard referred to the kids that picked on him as evil. I'd have to agree with him consistent with my analysis of the Va Tech situation. Both Richard and the VT shooter were bad, especially the VT shooter who actually carried out the slaughter of many people. He was incredibly bad. But the junior high kids in Richard's experience and the torturers in the VT went beyond bad actions. There actions were what I would call evil, because rather than destroying the body, they destroyed the soul. Richard and the VT shooter can and could have, respectively, rose above their destroyed souls, but it is a monumental task which not every human, let alone one with mental problems, can be expected to do without fail.
To kill for the average school shooter is often, in a extremely distorted way, to correct a perceived injustice. They were pushed to the breaking point. But for those who kill their souls, the murder was done, presumably for pleasure or popularity as much playground ribbing is. To quote Schleiermacher via my other post,
Isn't this quote the theme of Dostoevsky's Brother's Karamazov with the three brothers all responsible in various ways for their father's death?
"You loved crucifying me. You loved inducing cancer in my head and terror in my heart... You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul, and tortured my conscience. I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
The man's soul was clearly destroyed. Here was my angry response to the media commentary on the shooter:
"Here was a man who spent a lifetime being shit on, made fun of, and outcast and Brian Williams, host of the NBC nightly news, has the audacity to call him a narcissist. A cold-blooded killer, yes. An evil-doer, yes. A narcissist? Great analysis Brian. Way to really think about the underlying issues and then disseminate what you've discovered as you sit with your perfect greased-back hair in front of the biggest narcissistic pond of all, the prime time camera."
I just noticed that I used the word evil in that quote, but I think the new article on the would-be shooter from CNN better hones in on the difference between bad and evil.
"Elaine and her husband, Tom, adopted Richard from a Bulgarian orphanage when he was just 4½ years old.... In junior high, he said, "evil" classmates started picking on him. Boys and girls, he said, bullied him until he couldn't take it anymore. "I always wanted to get revenge," he said.
It's telling that Richard referred to the kids that picked on him as evil. I'd have to agree with him consistent with my analysis of the Va Tech situation. Both Richard and the VT shooter were bad, especially the VT shooter who actually carried out the slaughter of many people. He was incredibly bad. But the junior high kids in Richard's experience and the torturers in the VT went beyond bad actions. There actions were what I would call evil, because rather than destroying the body, they destroyed the soul. Richard and the VT shooter can and could have, respectively, rose above their destroyed souls, but it is a monumental task which not every human, let alone one with mental problems, can be expected to do without fail.
To kill for the average school shooter is often, in a extremely distorted way, to correct a perceived injustice. They were pushed to the breaking point. But for those who kill their souls, the murder was done, presumably for pleasure or popularity as much playground ribbing is. To quote Schleiermacher via my other post,
"No one can be viewed as the exclusive transgressor in regard to what is done. Rather, the more a person’s action seems to call for condemnation, the easier it is in most cases to show how the agent has in various ways been tempted and provoked and to show for how long the evil in that person has been nourished by the sin of others. Consequently, in all sinful actions a shared work and a shared guilt are involved."
—Friedrich Schleiermacher, “On the Sacrifice of Christ That Makes Perfect,” in Reformed But Ever Reforming, trans. Iain G. Nicol (Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997), 88.
Isn't this quote the theme of Dostoevsky's Brother's Karamazov with the three brothers all responsible in various ways for their father's death?
Monday, April 14, 2008
#164 Sullivan on Authoritarianism
"Amputating the capacity to reason is the first recourse of fundamentalists and fascists. They both crave the unknowingness of submission to pure authority."
-- Andrew Sullivan in a post on the justification of torture as our great democracy slowly slides towards totalitarianism.
-- Andrew Sullivan in a post on the justification of torture as our great democracy slowly slides towards totalitarianism.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
#163 An Indictment of Community
1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.I Corinthians 5:1-5
So, what does this mean?
I think it's important first to remember that when Paul wrote this, a) he was speaking with apostolic authority that neither you nor I have today, b) he was addressing a particular community of believers, c) about a particular individual, d) regarding a specific sin (namely, a man sleeping with his mother/stepmother), e) in the 1st century. In addition, Paul arguably knew the community well including the individual who sinned. Also, remember that Paul's injunction concerning this man is but a small piece of the actual theme of the pericope in question, which is to call the Corinthian church out on their arrogance and boasting. It's in this context that any examination of the text has to begin.
So to attempt to extrapolate general principles regarding general ecclesiology in the 21st century is dangerous at best. With that said, let's do what we can, since Danger is my middle name!
As J. Paul Sampley's NIB commentary says, "Paul looks for some disposition as far from arrogance as possible and suggests a more fitting response would be grieving." I think a focus on that word, grieving, should come before any "handing over" we attempt to do as church members. In fact, the NRSV translates this word as "mourned". Why is this response the only appropriate one for Paul? Sampley goes on, "Because that man's action, his porneia (in Greek), is an indictment of the entire community" and of their failure to exercise proper care for one another [bolding is mine]. It is with this thought that we are starting to hear echoes of Jesus calling out Pharisees, while dining with sinners. Paul apparently learned his ecclesiology well from the Master.
Remember that in chapters 1-4, Paul "set up the proper contrast between the world and true believers - the rival two-way tradition - and even capitalizes on [his] general depiction of divisive, boastful believers as behaving like ordinary non-believers (3:3)... Note that Paul chides the ones who are arrogant, puffed up, boastful (5:2; cf. 4:6, 18-19). He has had the arrogant and puffy Corinthians in view from early on in this letter... they are likely the same ones who are taking sides and using the gospel as a power game (4:6-7).
Another important question is, how in the hell [no pun intended] does handing somebody over to the domain of Satan/the flesh/the world work to their benefit? Sampley provides one option: So that, "his fleshly pursuits may be unmistakably seen by him as alien to the gospel." This seems to be otherwise known as bold love, tough love, or a wake-up call. I think the phrase "hand over to Satan" is best translated in the 21st century as "to put out of the community". And I think it all goes back to defining community. Sampley believes community to be an important part of the function of Paul's command: "The other believers have an obligation to act in a defining way; they need to reaffirm the borders of proper community life and cast the 'wicked one' out of their fellowship. Paul's prescription is a radical step, radical in the sense of getting to the root of the proper community identity and comportment." So that's another question to ask ourselves: what is our identity as a community to be? Furthermore, can there be any real community if people do not care about how each other behaves? I know this is certainly not the case in my marriage or any of my friendships, and it cannot be the case with the church. Rather, for Paul holiness is not an individual virtue. It can only be done in community. As Sampley puts it, "Christians stand or fall as a community, not as collected individuals."
Because this is such a dangerous issue, it is important to also think about some of the extreme ways in which this can be applied. This was apparently happening in Paul's time. Remember that First Corinthians was actually (at least) the second letter that Paul had written to the Corinthians with Second Corinthians being (at least) the third, Sampley makes some interesting observations about the extreme ways in which the Corinthians were actually trying to follow Paul's command to remove the yeast (i.e. purify the community): "... the Corinthians themselves came up with some radically different understandings of his counsel against mingling with immoral people. Could it not be some of these very readers who concluded that they might do well to divorce their unbelieving spouses (7:12-16)? Is it an even more radical interpretation of Paul's counsel against mingling that leads some married persons to wonder if holiness and human sexuality can coexist and who, therefore, decided to abstain from sexual intercourse (7:5)? And why could not the man with his father's wife be one who took a very different reading on Paul's earlier letter [presumably the true 'First' Corinthians], understanding that two believers could operate on a different and liberated moral code as long as both of them were believers?"
Another point to remember is that Paul rejected the kind of fleeing into the desert mentality that so many believers opt for today when confronted with sin (5:10). The Jewish community at Qumran, associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls responded in this way around Paul's time.
Finally, Paul was addressing a community in crisis. You only need read the letter once to get the slightest idea that this is the case. But as Sampley reflects, and I think he is here at his best and most salient point for ecclesiology, "Surely, excommunication in a church setting is a radical action whose very need already signals a massive failure of the fellowship to nurture and counsel its members. A church that has done the work of mutual encouragement and mutual checking properly will probably never face the need to withdraw fellowship from an individual." Judging from Paul's statements, this massive failure was certainly the situation in Corinth, and we would do well to look into our own hearts and churches to determine if this is the case with us as well before we even dream of handing anyone over to anything.
Above all there remains faith, hope, and love, as we know so well. Why is this "handing over" compatible with these virtues? Because the action can only be taken to cleanse the faith of the community, and in hope, a hope that springs from mourning and grieving for the cast out individual, an individual we love because no man mourns and grieves for the salvation of someone he does not love. As Wolfhart Pannenberg has said, "Hope and love belong together. Only those who hope with and for others can also love them ... Love's imagination, its creative impulse, lives on hope".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)