In the wake of the Georgia/Russia/South Ossetian kerfuffle I’d like to consider the implications of expansion as policy for a country. The invasion and counter-invasion (which was mostly missed by me due to my disconnect with the Internet and news sources over the last two weeks), is something I’m not qualified yet to comment. I’m still reading up about, one source here.
However, in the abstract, especially in the wake of recent military adventures and the as well the Kosovo and Ossetian moves toward independence, one might consider when and if national expansion is justifiable. Certain elements of the left as well as the pacifistic supporters are of the opinion that attacking or anything but “defensive” wars are inexcusable in all circumstances. This belies the fact that every nation that exists, owes its very existance to a past non-defensive war. The motions of peoples in the antiquity, clans settling and moving were all accompanied by violence. If only defensive wars are justified, how are those wars justifiable if indeed the place being defended was initially acquired in a way which is a priori unjust, that is if aggressive conflict is assumed unjust.
Now, I’m well aware the “everyone does it” isn’t a moral justification. In ethics, there is rarely a cut and dried simplistic path to the good. There are instead tensions, or a weighting that must be done. One must evaluate the good and other less salutary aspects to find a solution which maximizes the good. Similarly in political conflict there are times when war (even wars of aggression) are viewed by those evaulating the possibilities as the best possibility. For a people the option of expressing their independence can be seen as one which justifies much. Manifest destiny drove expansion of the US states from a small colony on the East coast across the continent to the other sea. Expansion did not always occur peacefully (and it is naive to expect that an expanding industrializing civilization can abide peacefully in contact with a nomadic tribal one).
Roman expansion in part was driven by economic goals and gains as well as a notion that Roman civilizing influences were in the best interest of the conquered nation. Glen Cook, in a fantasy novel which I read in my (mispent?) youth, had a character remark to another that “no villain sees himself as evil”. That is the villain of the piece is acting for and on the behalf of what he perceives as good. And that fact is something which is wise to recall.
Mr Putin as well as almost all or leaders are honestly doing what they feel is “right” and in the best interests of their people. While is easier to assume your personal take on the world is “righteous” and those with whom you disagree are in the wrong, most of the time the “other” guy, even those with a wildly different idea of what is right to do, has performed the same sort of reasoning, but with a different set of starting assumptions and “weighting” of values and also things he’s right and doing good. That makes the world a little more complicated, but at the same time is a more realistic view of the way things are.
Poverty, as Glenn Beck notes, is an issue that unites us all, at least on the surface. It’s not a political condition, he says; it’s a human condition.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities [Detroit, Michigan and Buffalo, New York] are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.
No matter what side of the political aisle you’re on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you’ll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.
Indeed. Instead, we should see what works and do it. Additionally, we should see what doesn’t work and stop doing it. I mean, if providing the same solution for decades hasn’t helped, it’s time for a radically different answer.
But as Glenn observes, there are some places that will stick with their solution through thick and thin (and failure).
We were having some problems with the blog late last week. Not sure what the cause was, so I informed my web host provider. They responded that it was a problem on their end, and to fix it they upgraded the version of WordPress that this blog runs on. Now, I had planned on doing that at some point after I read through and followed all the upgrade procedures I’d seen posted on the web. Instead, they just did it themselves.
It appears that the categories got fouled up, such that all the categories are in fact still there, but they don’t have names anymore. So I’m going to be spending some time reconstructing them. In the meantime, you’ll still be hearing from us, you just won’t be able to easily pull up posts from any of our categories. Sorry ’bout that. We’re working on it.
I was talking with an old buddy of mine about a political topic last night (whether allowing China to keep its MFN trade status with us has helped or hurt Chinese Christians) when he told me that didn’t care one way or the other how our government interacted with their government (I’m paraphrasing) because God is bigger than any government and that He will work His will in that country regardless.
I was a little disconcerted about this, since I believe that we can and do have a part to play in the world as Christians, including the political sphere. My friend then got a little more specific. For him, politics was just not something he was gifted or interested in. He had relatives who were very politically inclined, and he’d had a number of conversations with them where they suggested that he needed to be more informed and involved. His point to me was this: There are those who are interested and gifted regarding politics just like any other ability (encouragement, teaching, etc.). For those that are gifted (and all these gifts come from God), they should get involved and active. It would be a misuse of their talents not to. For he and others who are not gifted in this area, it would be a waste of time to try to fit in where God had not intended them to.
I suggested that perhaps saying that everyone should follow politics is like saying that everyone should be a missionary. As high a calling as missionary might be, if God’s not made you for that, there is an even higher calling that He has you for. (Perhaps, policy wonk?)
We were at the church working with a professional sound technician who was helping us get more out of the system we have, so our conversation was done at that point as we got back into that subject. That was last night, and I’ve had some more time to consider that conversation today. Here are some additional thoughts I’ve had.
For the past few weeks, the political press has been waiting breathlessly for the most anticipated announcement of the 2008 Election campaign: the vice-presidential nominations. But does the actual nomination matter as much as the media would have us believe? Does the actual nomination have any real influence on the vote?
Pundits will tell you that by selecting a particular candidate will all but guarantee delivery of a swing state for the ticket. Others will tell you that a VP nominee’s experience will “balance the ticket” or counterbalance the presidential candidate’s weaknesses by bringing expertise in a given area such as foreign policy or economic issues.
Personally, I don’t believe a bit of it. In selecting a VP nominee, a candidate really only needs to think about one thing (besides the obvious question of whether their selection could step into the role of President under a worst-case scenario).
The main thing that the presidential candidate needs to guard against is destroying their chances at getting elected by making a lousy vice-presidential choice.
In California, the First Amendment is subordinate to the whims of the judges. The Associated Press reports:
California’s highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.
What "treatment" was denied? How was care withheld, as the AP headline claims?
Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."
In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.
Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.
So what we’re really talking about here is an elective procedure, not "care" nor "treatment" of some condition. And the doctors did everything up to the point where their religious convictions wouldn’t let them continue. Even then, they instructed Benitez how to do it herself.
A detail you won’t find here but is brought up in the WorldNetDaily coverage, the case was dismissed when it was originally brought, but liberal Californians can be certain that, no matter the obstacles, their Supreme Court can be counted on to come through.
But don’t doctors have constitutional rights, too? Well the California Medial Association used to think so, but they changed their tune "after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay-rights community." We have the bullying tactics of the "tolerant" Left connect with the political correctness of the medical community, with the result being a trampling of the Constitution.
This is what passes for the imprudent "jurisprudence" we find on the Left Coast. This almost calls for a Constitutional amendment, except we already have one and it doesn’t seem to be working.
[tags]California Supreme Court,Constitution,homosexuality,First Amendment,religious rights,Douglas Fenton,Christine Brody,Guadalupe Benitez[/tags]
If Barack Obama can only answer the question,
“At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”
with,
“Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,”
Then he is declaring at least two things:
That he is incapable of determining any answer stems from the fact that the question Rick Warren posed was improperly qualified with a subjective “in your view” loophole. Such a loophole opened the door for a subjective, “I’m personally opposed to abortion…”, rhetoric. Yet, despite the loophole, Obama could do no better than give a non-answer, thereby displaying either supreme ignorance, or supreme deceit.
Mr. Obama, if you cannot determine, even within the vagueness of an “in your view” opinion context, when a baby gets human rights, how can you justify supporting an abortion-friendly policy which could very well, and indeed does, violate the human rights of “babies” across this country? Wouldn’t the mere fact that you proclaim ignorance on the issue mandate that you take the safer stance of protecting the rights of the unborn?
Yes, Mr. Obama, the answer to that question is way above your pay grade, as is the office of President of the United States. You, sir, are either an ignorant fool, or a self-serving, platitude preaching, substance devoid politician, attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of many an American citizen.
Don’t know how it got there, but this song was going through my mind this weekend, so I thought I’d plant it in yours as well. :) Video’s OK, but it’s the music that I’m really passing along.
In the continuing study of John 15, we came to verse 2 today.
He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.
Among the points, noting that God the Father does make the tough calls and cuts off those branches not producing and pruning those that do, is the question of what is spiritual fruit?
First, fruit is Christ-like character, and here we see a parallel with Paul’s list of the fruits of the Spirit from Galatians. And later on in John 15, Jesus talks about how one of these fruits comes about.
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
Our joy is complete when we follow Jesus’ example of following his commands.
Secondly, fruit is answers to prayer. Again, John 15 points to this.
If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
Thirdly, fruit is soul-winning. Earlier in John, chapter 4, Jesus describes what doing his Father’s work entails; bring other to know Him.
"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."
We don’t all perform the same task each time; sometimes planting the seed, sometimes watering it, sometimes reaping the harvest. But we should be laborers with Christ as part of the fruit He wants to see in us.
The gardener’s cutting and pruning are done because he wants a return on his investment, and because he wants the branches to flourish. That is what God the Father wants from us; flourishing. His correction is meant to bring that about.
[tags]sermon notes,Gospel of John,Christianity,fruit of the Spirit[/tags]
I hadn’t really intended to watch last night’s presidential candidate forum hosted by Saddleback Church and their celebrity pastor, Rick Warren. Part of the reason was that I was uncomfortable with the idea of a church being the host of a purely political event.
I’m still not sure how involved churches need to be involved in politics although I agree with those who believe that IRS regulations that restrict pastors from discussing politics should be repealed.
I’m not a big fan of Rick Warren, either. For all the good he has done, I disagree with his whole purpose-driven approach to church. I didn’t care for his bestselling book as I thought it was too theologically shallow. I honestly wasn’t sure that he would be willing to ask tough questions. I doubted Pastor Warren’s motives thinking he was looking for a way to give Senator Barack Obama a chance to make an appeal to evangelical voters who could very much decide the outcome of the election.
The format of the forum with each candidate being asked the same questions separately and not knowing the other’s answers seemed a bit unconventional. I wasn’t sure it would work.
I was wrong.
Watch this video for some details into Barack Obama’s position on abortion, specifically his position on what to do with babies born alive after a botched abortion.
Yes, this video does make an emotional appeal, but listen to the facts as well. This is Obama living up to his reputation as the most liberal of Senators. Hey, he’s even to the left of NARAL, if you can go that far without falling off the political spectrum.
[tags]Barack Obama,US presidential election,abortion[/tags]
Regarding the recent invasion of Russian forces into Georgia, Rod Dreher links to Fred Kaplan. Kaplan states,
Bush pressed the other NATO powers to place Georgia’s application for membership on the fast track. The Europeans rejected the idea, understanding the geo-strategic implications of pushing NATO’s boundaries right up to Russia’s border. If the Europeans had let Bush have his way, we would now be obligated by treaty to send troops in Georgia’s defense. That is to say, we would now be in a shooting war with the Russians. Those who might oppose entering such a war would be accused of “weakening our credibility” and “destroying the unity of the Western alliance.”
Dreher states,
To be fair, refusing to defend a NATO country that had come under attack would weaken the credibility of the alliance. But of course it would be insane to get into a shooting war with Russia — which still has nuclear weapons — to defend Georgia. This is why Bush had no business leading the Georgians on with this kind of crazy talk…
…
As repellent as I find the prospect of an Obama presidency, the idea of hotheaded John McCain sitting in the Oval Office now trying to figure out how to deal with a newly aggressive Russia makes me extremely nervous — this, to the extent that a McCain administration, on national security and foreign policy, represents a third Bush term.
Maybe Dreher and Kaplan should spray some Windex on their crystal balls.
The way I see it, the Russians not only see us as resource-stretched (and rightly so), what with our commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq, but they also see a lame-duck president.
More importantly, however, I think that they view the American people’s will as weak, and that their own fortune-tellers are envisioning an upcoming administration chock-full of platitudes, yet devoid of substance.
Notice that many of the complaints and criticisms of the way we’re handling the global war on terror link back to 20th century modes of thinking. Comparisons are made to Vietnam, the Cold War, NATO, etc. The problem is, we aren’t living in the 20th century. There is no Soviet Bloc, we aren’t on the verge of nuclear annihilation and, for the most part, we aren’t facing an enemy clothed in identifiable uniforms.
In Rethinking Russia on Terrorism Issues, Douglas Farah states,
…Russia is set on selling weapons to those who want very badly to hurt us, and who buy their weapons with the stated purpose of using them for that.
Everyone sells weapons, and yes, the United States plays in the game. But Russia’s willingness to arm non-state actors and states that are facing international sanction is qualitatively different.
This is the world we face, in the 21st century.
Watch in amazement as John McCain condemns Russia for having the temerity to cross an international boundary — “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
We all recall, of course, John McCain’s outrage when the United States violated this rule back in 2003.
So James Taranto’s prediction has quickly come true. Which got me wondering; how many dozen UN resolutions does it take before an invasion is OK by international standards, and how many resolutions was Russia enforcing when it invaded the Republic of Georgia?
[tags]Mathew Yglesias,John McCain,Russia,James Taranto,Best of the Web Today,United Nations,Republic of Georgia[/tags]
John McCain said "…today we are all Georgians." The Lefty blogosphere’s reaction:
Common sense indicates that, no, I am not a Georgian. But John McCain says “today we are all Georgians.” But does he mean it? Suppose Russia was bombing Atlanta and threatening to advance to Savannah. In solidarity with Georgia (the state) Americans from all fifty states would band together and fight the Russians off. Now I don’t think we should go to war with Russia. And I hope John McCain doesn’t think we should go to war with Russia. But insofar as he doesn’t mean that we should go to war with Russia on Georgia’s behalf, what’s the meaning of the claim that “we are all Georgians”?
On one level, it’s empty political sloganeering. But on another level it’s not empty — it’s downright irresponsible, and an example of the sort of irresponsible behavior that got us into this.
"smintheus", on the front page of the Daily Kos:
How would the trad media have portrayed Barack Obama if he had behaved as John McCain has done since Georgian President Saakashvili sent troops into South Ossetia? Would it have been ‘presumptuous’ to issue proposals to intervene in the fighting even before the President had spoken? To stake out an aggressive position far in front of anything the US wished to adopt? To attack a rival candidate for refusing to do the same?
Jasen at ElectoPundit:
Maybe John McCain would like to get us involved in ethnic cleansing campaigns, or nuclear exchanges?
Michael Crowley at The New Republic:
It may be a noble sentiment, and Georgia is deserving of American diplomatic support. But is he really speaking for all–or even most–Americans? My strong hunch is that precious few Americans want to feel they’re the victims of Russian aggression. Instead they want all the foreign-policy madness to calm down already. It hardly seems a winning message for McCain to imply that in their hearts the American people should consider themselves at war with Russia.
A. Serwer at The American Prospect:
I think I speak for most Americans when I say:
"Does he mean the state?"
In all seriousness, if the battle over South Ossetia is 9/11, then didn’t McCain just commit us to a military response, since that’s how the United States responded in the aftermath of the WTC attacks? The election hasn’t even happened yet and he’s trying to start new wars.
Some people might call that "presumptuous."
I wonder what these folks would think if, say, a Democratic President, in the middle of the Cold War, went to West Berlin and said,
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!
Do you think there’d be nearly the accusations of war-mongering and presumption then? (Hint: No.) JFK claimed to speak for the entire free world, for goodness sake!
Perhaps McCain should have said, "I am a Georgian" in Georgian. That would have been OK, right? Right?
[tags]John McCain,Russia,Republic of Georgia,Matthew Yglesias,Daily Kos,The American Prospect,ElectoPundit,The New Republic,John F. Kennedy[/tags]
Help Build Houses and Hope with Habitat for Humanity
