A Memory from the British Museum

A couple of years ago, in my lone trip across the pond, I chanced upon the opportunity to visit the British Museum in London. I will never forget the clear, blue sky of London that early spring afternoon as we exited the Tottenham Court Road Tube station. In all, there's really nothing quite like a London spring.

The walk to the British Museum was brief. Tree lined streets with budding leaves of green heralded our arrival. In no time, we stood before the massive Greek Revival facade facing Great Russell Street. More than a bit awestruck at one of history's hallowed halls, we slowly approached the front steps of the great museum.

During this particular visit my companions included two friends- one of whom insisted upon taking his time uninterrupted throughout the massive complex. His interest in history stemmed from a childhood of reading the encyclopedia Britannica- his pre-med studies notwithstanding. As you can imagine, my personal ambitions for the afternoon, as well as those of my other friend, were far more modest. For us, the only exhibits which held our imagination were viewing the Rosetta Stone and King Tut.

Seeing the Rosetta Stone took place in short order. It's actually fairly un-impressive as a structure encased in a simple glass container no more than 7 feet tall. Much to our chagrin, we learned shortly thereafter that King Tut was was actually resting comfortably back in Egypt where, incidentally, he had remained for the past 30-odd years (and the past three millenia or so before that until he was discovered by Howard Carter in 1923).

Disappointed, and somewhat tired from an already full day which included a trip to the Tower of London, we followed our eager friend as he assiduously made his way through the museum's long corridors. Not being one to appreciate the finer points Assyrian sculpture, my patience soon peaked. Rather than ask my companion what he found so fascinating about the reliefs of Nineveh's Royal Lion Hunt, the obvious solution was to part ways with my more historically appreciative travel mate. Leaving him to his stone art, the other friend and I immediately traipsed about the colossal facility seeing everything we possibly could in the hour we had allotted for the task.

The British Museum done American style you might say.

In this hour, however, we saw nearly all of the finer points of the museum's collection. From ancient Egyptian mummies (again, not King Tut) to the now famous Great Court in the museum's center showcasing the King's reading room (and presumably the King's snack bar where a Diet Coke was a whopping two pounds), my friend and I walked past the pantheon of human culture and achievement from the foundations of recorded existence. It was by far one of the most productive hours of my life.

Quite literally unbeknownst to us centuries of human history and culture stood only arms length away. At the time, it was 'cool' to me but uninteresting as a visit to Parliament was the next stop. Among these then unappreciated exhibits were the Elgin marbles- named after Lord Elgin who procured them from the Parthenon in Athens, Greece back in 1806. At the time we saw the sculptures, I was beside myself as to why they were called marbles. It was a foolish quibble in retrospect but the marbles are actually wall panels depicting battles between various figures of Greek mythology.

More to the point, what I did not realize during my hour long sprint was how much controversy surrounded their acquisition until I read the headlines yesterday from the BBC which immediately took me back to the day enjoyed nearly three years ago. The feud has gone on for some time, but Greek officials and the Greek public have repeatedly petitioned the British Museum for the return of their priceless national treasures. And the response of the museum is that it is not obliged to return them because they are well (viz. better) protected in London.

It seems that perhaps history's hallowed hall is less display and more fortress.

[Link]

And so it goes that a new generation of Greek students has taken up the task collecting some 65,000 signatures in protest. It's hard to be unsympathetic. Given the Brits' decimation of peoples and cultures over the ages, one might say they were the original imperialist as opposed to the reflexive coronation often given to the United States.

Yet, for now at least, the mysterious marbles which brought Keats to weep remain steadfastly in London where Lord Elgin brought them over 200 years ago.

Both the day spent in their midst and Keats' ruminations on time remind of me of the poem by Shelley which concludes, Nothing beside remains: round the decay, Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away .

For the Greeks, the Elgin marbles must seem as far from Athens as the lone sands of Ozymandias.

Some Thoughts on Mike Huckabee

With the GOP pow-wow in MD officially over, House Republicans are finally beginning to sing Kumbaya. Minority Leader John Boehner was quick to mention:
 

"The American people basically agree with us," Mr. Boehner said. "We own the moral high ground, our president has the bully pulpit, and we have each other."

[Link]

 

If our party hadn't been embarrassed in the mid-terms, I might poke fun at Boehner for having had an Oprah moment. After the "we have each other" bit the House Republican leader was obviously ripe for a big group hug. Chuck Hagel excluded.

 

Leaving one silliness for another, with the winter retreat out of the way and CPAC just around the corner, some conservatives are already getting antsy that the GOP has not informally crowned its nominee (Seriously people, there are roughly 651 days till the next election. Give us all a break). Absent a clear conservative front-runner some, such as the NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez, are beginning to herald the call to draft Bush (Jeb). Meanwhile, others offer stark warnings against royalism attempting to thwart a Jeb Bush candidacy which is hitherto non-existent even by exploratory committee standards.

Given the whirlwind of candidates, potential candidates and campaign events (Yup. Campaign events --I kid you not), I suppose it's only appropriate to comment on one of the most compelling candidacies emerging from our boys on the right. Just today, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee announced his early steps toward running for President. 

 

What good can possibly come from the State of Clinton?  Perhaps quite a bit.  Here's why:

My first comments on Mike Huckabee came way back in September when I noted his attendance at the Family Research Council's Voter Values Summit and began passively following his nascent campaign.

One of the things which impressed me most about Huckabee's operation early on was how different the tone sounded from most of the GOP politicos down in Washington. I'm inclined to believe the words are more than rhetoric given Huckabee's record as Governor which more than speaks for itself. 

 

It would be easy for liberals to dismiss him as just another conservative but for the conditions under which Huckabee governed.  In Arkansas, a Democrat leaning state, the political clime all but mandated an air of cooperation on every piece of legislation put forward. This bipartisan cooperation would lead to significant statewide gains and would eventually earn Huckabee the honor of being named among Time's top five governors during his chairmanship of the NGA.

Another thing which struck me was how incredibly affable the man is.  One of the things you'll notice in the video below, is how warmly Huckabee is received in even the most liberal enclaves.  The Daily Show's Jon Stewart is certainly no friend of Republicans but even Stewart appears struck by Huckabee's sense of humor and candor.  His performance, albeit early, points to an articulate candidate with a knack for cracking jokes.  Not a bad attribute to have when standing along side Hillary Clinton or John McCain.  
 

 

Finally, perhaps the most compelling point of Huckabee's candidacy for a self-professed Evangelical is his staunch embrace of Jesus.  Huckabee a former Southern Baptist minister remarked in his campaign declaration yesterday:

 

"I make no apology for my faith," he said. "My faith explains me."

 

[Link]

 

I'm no expert, but I think it's safe to say that no one connects better with the GOP's Evangelical base than a fellow Christian Evangelical.  It's hard to get much more Evangelical than a Southern Baptist pastor. 

 

For now, I like Mike!  (Sounds like a slogan to me!)

Hillary Clinton Sings National Anthem

Americans have much to fear from Senator Hillary Clinton.

But the only thing worse than Hillary's singing is her ultra-liberal agenda.

Some Political Lessons in Character

Aside from daily proclaiming the political death of President Bush, the mainstream press also does an interesting job amalgamating profiles of some of the quirkiest members of Congress. I presume their goal is to frighten the American people into believing their government is on the verge of collapse but for the media's watchful eye. With Democrats having developed a bipolarity on foreign policy it's really the best they can do. Accordingly, on the profiles the press for once does a good job.

There were three such profiles that crossed my path recently all dealing with present members of the Senate. For the House of Representatives, profiling members is generally less interesting given the majority of members can't tell the difference between 100 hours and 2 weeks (read Democrats). The Senate profiles, although similarly eccentric, highlight three very different members whom I admire for as many reasons: Tom Coburn (R-OK), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and John McCain (R-AZ).

The Coburn profile came from an interesting source. Typically, I associate GQ Magazine with every sense of style and fashion I was never blessed to have. More recently, the publication has ventured into the murky waters of politics and featured several prominent DC politicos. GQ does an admirably fair job of portraying Oklahoma's Jr. Senator, describing him as an independent thinker with a penchant for tortured metaphors and a deep animosity toward government waste. Coupled with his pro-life positions he's the epitome of Oklahoma politics. GQ writes:

But Coburn makes no apology for challenging his own party. "The American people want change," he said with a shrug. "I think they're wise to want change. The Republicans didn't do what they said they were going to do. They deserve the wrath of the voters."

[Link]

Coburn's description by most accounts is apt. The article describes his life in OK as the clearly dominant element of his life while his disgust with the GOP's propagation of government waste and taxes strike a resounding chord with those similarly disaffected by the American welfare state- including yours truly. But what made his profile most compelling was his willingness to buck the system and challenge his party. Coburn in many ways is the antithesis of recent GOP leadership whose spending habits led to mass punishment by the conservative base of the party.

The Sanders article was provocative as well but more for the aspect of Bernie Sanders' personality than for any legislative accomplishment he has championed (specifically, he hasn't had any significant legislative accomplishments). Here is the New York Times description of Sanders:

When I first met Sanders in person on Church Street, there were big streaks of dried mud on his shoes and dried blood on his neck from what looked to be a shaving mishap. His hair flew every which way in a gust of wind. At six feet tall, he is wiry, but he walks with shoulders hunched and elbows out, like a big, skulking bird. From a distance, he looked as if he could be homeless...Sanders zigzags the Capitol this way barely recognized, or acknowledged (or congratulated, or urged to run for president). A few people stare at the new senator as he walks by — maybe because he looks lost, or famous, or maybe just because he looks like a strange bird out of Vermont.

[Link]

I should clarify from the beginning, I would not personally advance the homeless look for up and coming politicians. Yet, there's something surprisingly refreshing about a senator from a small state who doesn't get sucked into the glitz and glamour of Washington. When you look at photos of Barack Hussein Obama poised before the cameras on Capitol Hill (not on the beach) in a Brooks Brothers suit and impeccably matched tie, you start to appreciate a Senator walking by who looks lost and who could easily be mistaken for a homeless person--even if he is a Socialist.

Of the three articles, the McCain piece probably carried the most weight- discussing both the boon and bust of standing on principle regardless of the political winds. According to the NRO's Rich Lowry, McCain has been pushing a troop surge since the war first began often through excoriating former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. Lowry concludes:

All that will be sorted out during the next year. In the meantime, as the windy Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel congratulates himself for his bravery in sponsoring a nonbinding resolution representing an anti-surge position supported by almost 70 percent of the public, and as poll-conscious Republicans flee from Bush, John McCain is steadfast, and the very picture of courageous political leadership.

[Link]

For conservatives, the Hagel foil is appropriate. In recent polls, his popularity hovers somewhere near the levels of Mark Foley and Richard Nixon in his unannounced Presidential bid. What's more substantive, perhaps, is McCain's willingness to stake out a stubborn position and stick with it. For the politically disaffected, it could be that his adherence to principle will carry the day in the GOP primary. It will certainly stand in contrast to the political pragmatists like Hagel, Clinton and Obama.

The three profiles taken together offer snap shots of the traits I find most admirable in politicians. From Coburn, I am reminded how important it is to place personal values and the good stewardship of the people's money over party. From Sanders, the clear lesson I take is that Washington operates very differently from VT (or any other state for that matter) and that glamour isn't necessarily a better substitute for being yourself. Finally, the stand taken by Senator McCain offers all who would cling to principle a clear figure for inspiration. He, quite literally, could lose the Presidency on the basis of his position, yet his unwavering stand is profound even if one disagrees with the position he has maintained since the war began.

The lessons I suppose are basic. But given the recent direction Congress has taken, going back to the basics isn't such a bad thing.

Responses to the State of the Union: The Lion and The Lamb

After talking about the state of unions generally, I decided to survey the many reactions to speech making their way into the Nation's media outlets and opinion columns.  From the mainstream press I found a fairly typical smattering of Bush-bashing pieces buttressed by sham journalism likening the present conflict in Iraq to our struggles in Vietnam (one creative hit job by MSNBC's Tom Curry even went so far as to say Bush was no Lyndon Johnson for example). 

Not to be out done, the carnival that is our Democrat led Congress had it's very powerful say through a non-binding, largely symbolic resolution condemning the victory strategy outlined by the President Tuesday night.  Nothing says Democrats are large and in charge quite like a non-binding resolution which manages to accomplish nothing (except, perhaps, the new ethics reforms advanced by Nancy Pelosi in revoking the very scandalous title " freshmen" for new members of Congress.  Give 'em hell Nancy!). 

No word on when Democrats will offer a real alternative to the President's proposal.  Then again, as the Washington Times astutely note, the only certainty in this Congress is that no matter what policy is put forward the Democrats will complain. 

In dire search of some meaty reactions to the speech, I traversed into uncharted territory and read the writings of an old foe of mine on this blog.  I admit, I read Ann Coulter.  And you know what? I enjoyed her column- a great deal.  Frightening, I know.  Feeling I was somehow falling into sin, I decided to read Fox News' Father Morris for a bit of spiritual grounding to my partisan ways.  The net result was that through some odd symbiosis of right-wing angst and child-like faith I arrived at a surprising intersection of political humility and political resolve.  Not at all what I expected.

For many conservatives, Coulter has long been a bastion of sorts- a stalwart bullhorn venting the inner frustrations with liberal foolishness they were only too timid to express.  For these, her colum this week doesn't disappoint (in it, Coulter takes Democrat Sen. Jim Webb to task for his lewd writings of pedophilia and calls out Sen. Hillary Clinton for riding her husband's political gravy train instead of forging her own path).  Her critiques are fair.  Her shock and awe abilities are admirable. 

By contrast, Father Morris ruminates on the subdued disposition of the entire political gaggle.  He reflects on the the absence of quick success in Iraq- a version of success which has become almost synonymous with the Boomer Generation currently leading Congress.  And he talks at length about the divided political climate in which the debate takes place.  His ultimate conclusion is that the absence of clear direction for the country's foreign policy is humbling for a Nation as blessed as we are with might economic, military and political.  The lessons offered are about what one might expect from a Catholic priest.

Oddly, I think the views go hand in hand for conservatives assessing the speech.  Coulter's reaction to the speech is to play offense.  Politically, at least, liberals represent the antithesis of any conservative perspective by definition.  If Tom Curry can liken President Bush to Lyndon Johnson, then Ann Coulter is ostensibly justified in calling Hillary "Billary".  When o nce our partisan passions become inflamed, Father Morris encourages moderation with out divvying up blame.  For Morris, the lost virtue of humility looks askance as the Barack Obamas and the Chuck Hegals of Washington lay claim to the political middle- conveniently before every TV camera they can round up.

The result is a good lesson when taken in total.  When Coulter reminds us that liberals are all heart and no brain, Father Morris is there to remind us that sometimes a little heart can go a long way.  The joint lesson is the one Washington needs to learn.   But more than likely they'll be focused on attacking  the Vice President's family or some foolishness like universal healthcare.

The State of Our Unions

The President's State of the Union address was last night. Some of you may recall that I did a live blog of the speech last year. I obviously had a lot of time on my hands then. The reactions to the President's speech from the press were ubiquitously negative but this isn't really post-worthy. What would merit a few reactions would be if the press actually had something good to say about any Republican let alone the President (Olympia Snow and Chuck Hagel excluded--then again are they really Republicans?).

I suppose one interesting, albeit random news item which crossed the wires was an update on the weather in London. Apparently, the city's public transportation system was utterly crippled by an inch of snow yesterday. The London Evening Standard blames the transport stumble on bad planning. As a New England expat going on six years, I think London should suck it up but that's just me.

The one item which I did note with some curiosity was the rash of articles discussing matters of the heart. From the New York Times to the National Review, media outlets can't seem to dissect the institution of marriage enough lately (I wonder if it has anything to do with the recent passing of the un-happiest day of the year?). I'm really not sure what prompted the spate of stories but they do offer a few interesting thoughts and the types of articles out on the issue run the gamut. The Washington Time's rather meager contribution was an article discussing the role of computers in interfering with happy marriages. Perhaps its an issue of concern but it seems to me we have more pressing issues with marriage than computer infidelity (insert hard-drive and RAM jokes here).

Most of the stories stem from a recent article in the New York Times exploring why America finds itself with a surplus of single people. As one might expect, the NYT makes the case that marriage/singles break down along class lines. The assertion would be laughable but for the numbers they show which seems to support the point. The Times argues:

The emerging gulf is instead one of class — what demographers, sociologists and those who study the often depressing statistics about the wedded state call a "marriage gap" between the well-off and the less so. Statistics show that college educated women are more likely to marry than non-college educated women — although they marry, on average, two years later.

[Link]

Surprisingly, the National Review seems to agree. In an interview discussing a new book out on the topic the NRO quotes an expert who says:

To return to your question about the state of marriage then: It's doing pretty well — though not great — among college-educated Americans. But when it comes to those with less education, marriage is a mess. Hence the subtitle of my book: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-marital Age.

[Link]

It should be said as point of fact that I take serious issue with some of the NYT's numbers. The NRO explains in clear terms exactly how the Times article inflates the number single women. The percentage cited by the Times includes a significant number of adolescents who by definition bring the averages down (15-19 year old women are included in the study).

But what is clear from the Times article is that marriage has its detractors among younger generations of Americans. Speaking as a single twenty-nothing, I think a large part of the problem comes from having lived through the effects of marriage in our parents generation. From broken families to loveless unions, the previous generation did significant harm to the institution as borne out in the following generation's reluctance to embrace it. Given experience, why should they? In an age of resurgent pragmatism, the risks simply are not worth the costs. Why put future children through the tragedy of a broken family? Why embrace a model of life which only made our parents miserable? Given the whys and what ifs, it's not difficult to see how younger Americans are marriage averse. For many, I think the issue is that it's simply a scary prospect. In an era of hook ups and fleetingly ambiguous relationships, most probably question their ability to remain in a relationship which ideally lasts a lifetime. Some have probably been burned by one or more of these types of relationships and are cynical. Ours is a jaded age. Rumor has it the house cat industry is booming.

So what gives? For those who agree the institution is worth saving, ironically, the NYT offers a few solutions for the dire state of marriage- but only in part. The article concludes that better educated men and women share similar interest and backgrounds which ultimately soothes the couple for compatibility. It also argues that the better educated command more earning power which paves the way for happiness. It remains true that money isn't everything. It is also true that money does not hurt. It remains true that a happy marriage is not reserved for only an educated few. It is also true that education can help improve one's standard of living.

Tautologies aside, the best advice in the article for the potentially wed is to find someone with whom you are compatible. Not only in interests but more importantly in values. Some of the 'best' couples I've known have been those who share similar beliefs about the world, who have mutual interests (or at least a willingness to learn), and who understand the give and take involved in any relationship. These couples tend to avoid arguments about the logistics of married life. They also tend to avoid a relational break-down later because their mutual interests and worldview ultimately become the bedrock of the relationship when the silver tarnishes on the wedding gifts. As C.S. Lewis remarked, "This is one of the miracles of love: It gives a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted."

In sum, while it's true the previous generation did much harm to marriage, perhaps our analysis of singledom is amiss. Perhaps a generation of Americans who approach marriage more gingerly isn't a bad idea. Undertaking such a decision with gravity is both wise and self-interested. But what remains a societal ill is transitory nature of relationships which have risen to take marriage's place. Present culture indicates that the decision to embrace relationships of non-commitment is a safe, prudent course compared to the vastness of a marriage which though tried ultimately fails. This is akin to a child preferring to make mudpies in the backyard as opposed to taking a trip around the world. One may be fun, but the experience of the other is profoundly more edifying.

Old Bloggers Never Die, They Just Get Archived

Old habits die hard. Particularly those maintained day in, day out, over an extended period of time which are a lot of fun to boot. The past few weeks in as much as the prospect of posting multiple times a day grew taxing, not posting at all has been far less fulfilling. Besides, with the Democrat's running a circus on Capitol Hill and Nancy Pelosi serving as ringmaster, there's plenty of material to keep all of us entertained the next two years.

Call me a much dorkier Bill Parcells but it's time to announce, after only a one month hiatus, that your humble blogger is coming out of retirement- with a few caveats.

On this blogging go around, however, I plan to take my cues from Oprah and make the site work for me. First off, as you can see the layout has changed per usual.

Second, what might be less obvious is that the web address has also changed. After a few months of deliberation, I purchased the rights to www.paxplena.com and activated it so you should now be able to access the site without having to enter that nettlesome "blogspot" in the url. You should still be able to access the site via the old method http://paxplena.blogspot.com but I believe that even this url will resolve to the new web address.

Third, perhaps the biggest change this time around will be post frequency. I intend to continue to post daily, but expect far fewer posts than my previous quota of four per day. There are several reasons for this: the initial problem in my retirement was that blogging became draining. I believe posting less frequently will mitigate this issue of blogger fatigue. My ultimate hope is that the quality of the final product will be better as well. Rather than posting several brief communiqués, I plan on posting one long column length piece per day. The idea is to be less Wonkette and more George Will in form.

Anway, with that it's time to get down to business. I am quite pleased to re-join the ranks of the media non-elite and continue the conversation we began over two years ago.