Wednesday, September 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
When even the New York Times suggests that we might be winning, or indeed may have already won, the major part of the war in Iraq, that’s saying something.
When I left Baghdad two years ago, the nation’s social fabric seemed too shredded to ever come together again. The very worst had lost its power to shock. To return now is to be jarred in the oddest way possible: by the normal, by the pleasant, even by hope. The questions are jarring, too. Is it really different now? Is this something like peace or victory? And, if so, for whom: the Americans or the Iraqis?
The answer is, “Yes, all of the above.” Could it break down at a later date? Yes; no peace this side of eternity is eternal. But I would be extremely surprised if it breaks down back to rape rooms and all out firefights among Iraqis in some sort of true civil war. (One militia a la Al Sadr does not a civil war make.)
This article, according to the bottom of the web page, appeared only in the local New York edition of the paper, as if only New Yorkers would be interested in it. When the news agrees with the editorial page, it’s on the front page. When it doesn’t, it’s relegated to a spot somewhere around the Parade magazine insert. That’s what passes for “balance” at the New York Times.
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
The theme/question for this quarters CoCR by our host at The Cross Reference is:
I guess I’d be interested in hearing perspectives on what obstacles are presented by the varying liturgies (high/low, sacramental/non-sacramental, rubrical/freeform) and how they might be possible to overcome. I don’t necessarily want to get too doctrinal (although the law of prayer and the law of belief go hand-in-hand, as far as Catholics are concerned). And the issue of liturgical reform would be open for discussion as well.
Much of American worship experience when compared to that 5 or 10 centuries earlier is very much less liturgically and bound in ritual and movement than it was then. Charles Tayler in A Secular Age
recounts the development of the secularization of modern Western society. The move away from the ritual and formal liturgical expression was one intended to concentrate the spiritual focus of the worshiper away from externalities and to turn inwards concentrating on ones heart and mind to focus on God. As a result many churches and expressions in churches have become less liturgically bound. I suggest that many who reject, or “don’t get” liturgical expression also don’t really appreciate it. Likewise those who cherish liturgical worship don’t “get” or have a real appreciation for good non-liturgical worship.
I will admit up front, that I have always been part of a liturgical worship environment. I grew up in a Lutheran church … and have now ended in a Eastern Orthodox church, which is arguably about as “high” liturgical as you can get in the modern church. So I have a definite bias on the place of liturgy in worship. But, I’d like to pose a question for the non-liturgical church members.
One of the things liturgy and liturgical cycles are good for is memory. Passover and Pascha (Easter) are memories of two very significant events in the Hebrew and Christian churches. These are marked liturgically. The rest of the church year is marked out with a variety of other liturgical events … which in part are to help us remember and mark those as important. These can also mark other historical events. Recently, the church I attend has added to its liturgical calendar a service to remember 9/11. Americans remember July 4th and certain other Presidential holidays. We remember Pearl Harbor a lot less well. Why? Because, there is no secular “holiday” or secular liturgical event (if you will) to mark that day. 9/11 currently also has no such secular liturgy remembering that day. In 50-75 years in the absence of such a marking, like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 will fade from our public consciousness. The point is, liturgy and ritual make a connection not just in our mind, but in our whole being, our nous if you will, between us and events which we … as a church, find significant.
My question is how do you non-liturgical churches hold precious and fast to the important events in Church history in the absence of liturgical remembrance?
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The Washington Post claimed that a recent McCain ad, tying Barack Obama to Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie May, was based on “flimsy” evidence. Problem is, the source for the information was the Washington Post itself.
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Rusty Shackleford’s Jawa Report blog is reporting that the first link in his suspected chain of command in the Palin smear viral video has admitted to producing the video. However, it appears that Ethan Winner is falling on his sword, claiming full and sole responsibility for the production of the video. Shackleford isn’t convinced, and he spells out why.
Developing…
Monday, September 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Wacky ideas have been floating in my noggin.
- It might be an interesting political strategic move for the GOP, if President Bush, in a few weeks announced that on account of mistakes and failure to heed warning signs in the financial sector … that he’s resigning his office. President Cheney then makes a few moves to unbalance the Dems and then fades back into the background (where it might be noted, the President is … and I think that’s largely because the GOP strategists think that gives Mr McCain the best chance to win). How do you all think a surprise resignation might ruffle the waters?
- The Roman Empire divided into East/West in late antiquity because of the size of the Empire. Modern communications have made that unnecessary … however the complexity of the world has increased. Perhaps a “split” Executive office might be better for the Administration of the US in the modern era … perhaps dividing between a Domestic and Foreign Executive seat?
- One might suggest that voters tend to fall into two broad categories. Issues voters and character voters. Some want to dive into policy details, others into character and the psyche of the candidates. It might be interesting if some of the News outlets recognized this and specialized reporting those perspectives instead of a mishmash.
Monday, September 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
This report from Rusty Shackleford has been all the rage on the right side of the blogosphere today. It links viral video with false claims about Palin back to a PR firm that Obama and the DNC have used, though it was made to look like a grassroots effort. Most telling is that shortly after this scam was exposed by Shackleford, the videos came down and accounts were deleted.
The connection to Obama himself may be tenuous, but there is a better link to his chief media strategist. It helps the the voiceover artist used is the same one used on other Obama ads. Yeah, it smacks of conspiracy theories, but Rusty lays it all out (with screenshots and video, especially for the stuff that has since disappeared). He reports, you decide.
Is this something that only political junkies would even notice? Perhaps, but in the Internet world of MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, campaigns have to sometimes answer charges that don’t make it into the mainstream media. Although in this case, the New York Times and a number of liberal pundits did pick up and run with the charge that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a secessionist group. A big enough deal was made out of it that even FactCheck.org had to debunk the rumor.
Is this the “change” and “hope” and new kind of politics that Obama has promised his supporters? They may have been sold a bill of goods.
Monday, September 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
One of the problems I have with socialized healthcare is that it takes the responsibility for payment out of the hands of the person getting the care and places it in the hands of a massive bureaucracy that has, depending on the system, either a monopoly on being the payer or at least one of the larger ones. As such, it has an incentive to cut costs, but its incentive isn’t nearly as personal as an individual payer. The larger the bureaucracy, the less concern for the individual.
I’ve noted before how this led to the state of Oregon denying cancer medication to a woman, but still gave her coverage for physician-assisted suicide. It also leads to a British medical ethics expert suggesting that the elderly should take the same route, for the good of society.
Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves.
Her comments in a magazine interview have been condemned as “immoral” and “barbaric”, but also sparked fears that they may find wider support because of her influence on ethical matters.
Lady Warnock, a former headmistress who went on to become Britain’s leading moral philosopher, chaired a landmark Government committee in the 1980s that established the law on fertility treatment and embryo research.
(A tip of the Blogger’s Fedora to Right Wing News.)
The “leading moral philosopher” in Britain is asking people to die for the good of the state. What an insane world we live in.
Sunday, September 21st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
In the latter chapters of Genesis we are told a tale of Joseph and the Pharaoh. I should note, in the interest of honest disclosure I am no fan of Joseph bar Israel. However, for this little tale the important thing to note is that Joseph found himself in a position of control with regard to his government and in a financial crises used that opportunity to centralize the Coptic economy.
Today we find ourselves in a banking crises and it seems one of the results is that the central bank is now no longer an independent government entity. Centralization is occurring. It is likely that this process will continue until the currency and bank are fully under control of the (elected) nitwits on the Hill.
Some generations later, it is unclear how many, the Israelites found themselves due to Joseph’s centralization … to be slaves.
If F.A Hayek is right, we too will discover to our dismay that we too are slaves.
How then will we find our Exodus from that slavery I wonder?
Personally I think a recession would be preferable to acceding government control of the Bank. They should not allow some of the collapse as they don’t hold the paper to take on the debt they plan to assume. A little pain now, will be far better than the bloody revolution our children will be required to shed in order to win our freedom back from slavery.
Sunday, September 21st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
If one was to look at the tale of two crises and how our respective candidates reacted to them, the difference between them becomes clear.
In the Georgia/Russia scuffles, McCain immediately reacted speaking out against Russia’s aggression. Obama, in brief, did and said nothing of any note for quite some time, until the dust mostly settled and then … asked for a UN security resolution against the act (somehow overlooking the fact that any resolution would have to pass a Russian Federation veto).
In the current AIG/Merril/Banking crises, Mr McCain has asked for the retirement of the SEC head. He has suggested some regulatory mechanisms which he thinks might be helpful, and pointed out that he was warning about a upcoming crises of this sort for some time. Mr Obama has criticised everyone else, but has not actually suggested anything … yet. Like the above, it would be my bet that when a (liberal) consensus of “what to do” has arisen in his camp, he will put forward a relatively useless and vanilla proposal.
Mr Obama, I suggest, is not a leader. He may someday grow to be one after all he is young an inexperienced and has much learning and growth in the poitical process yet ahead of him. But he has not (ever?) demonstrated any leadership qualities. He may be able divise and find a consensus in within a party which has substantial agreement on the basics. But he has not demonstrated he can take the risks and gambles necessary to lead.
Mr McCain is a more instinctive leader, he may lead you astray sometimes, he may not. But he will lead. And that is an important quality in a leader.
Friday, September 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
…in a single two-panel cartoon at Red Planet Cartoons. The problem seems to stem from folks defaulting on home loans. It’s easy to label the lending institution “greedy” and go from there, but there’s a whole lot more to it than that. One big-government program has spawned this new big-government bailout.
Those with short attention spans will miss the larger picture. The larger picture is the more important one.
Friday, September 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Though “stealing” would be more the verb I’d use. In Obama’s latest ad running in the southwest, with narration in Spanish, he ties McCain to Limbaugh and then quotes Limbaugh on immigration issues. It calls McCain two-faced and a liar. But as Jake Tapper of ABC News discovers, the ad itself is where the deceit is.
The Obama camp draws a very tenuous link between Limbaugh and McCain to start the smear. Essentially, they say, they both supported the Minutemen. Well, except McCain didn’t, and Limbaugh has openly and loudly disagreed with McCain on immigration for a long time.
And then the two quotes from Limbaugh are out of context, one in the extreme. They took a quote from Rush’s sense of what American immigration law would be if they were like Mexico’s. He paraphrased protest laws for foreigners in Mexico by saying, “shut your mouth or get out”, and the ad makes it sound like he’s speaking to immigrants.
Tapper’s article has the full context for the quotes and both sides of the story on the “lies”. Karl Rove would be proud.
Oh, and someone please tell Ed O’Keefe of the Washington Post that his entirely uncritical reporting on this new ad does a disservice to his readers (but a rather nice service to Obama).
