By now, many of you will have heard something about the controversy surrounding Dutch MP Geert Wilders whose recent film Fitna has caused quite the splash on the international scene.
Before the film was even released, it earned the scorn and threat of Senior Iranian officials, and has since been soundly condemned by everyone from Ban Ki-Moon to the Jordanian parliament. Apparently, Jordan has gone the extra mile and requested the severance of diplomatic relations with Holland.
Who would have guessed that the land of wooden clogs, windmills and erudite dutch girls could cause such a stir?
The film itself, in my view, is relatively benign. The documentary intersperses violent readings from the Koran among news footage from Islamic terrorist attacks. It's been called a hatchet job against Islam by some, but this seems a bit prosaic. There is no reason for one to infer necessarily that the film is anti-Islamic. It could easily be viewed as opposing radical Islam- though the film producer, Geert Wilders, has blurred this distinction in his public comments.
What I find most striking about the documentary is that it has done relatively little to evince such significant world outrage. Recent movies about the Twin Towers and Flight 93 have been more stirring; some of the earlier news footage out of Iraq and Afghanistan more compelling. Not to belittle the work, but the documentary cobbled together by Wilders, at best, seems over-hyped.
Although Fitna was removed from the LiveLeak website over the weekend, the intrepid crew from across the pond has it back up. The English version of the film appears below or your critique.
Once you watch the above, let us undertake a quick exercise in religious tolerance and pluralism.
Consider, is Fitna any more offensive to religious sensibilities than say this:
How would the Muslim world react if we substituted the dancing Jesus down the street for a strutting, effeminate, Prophet Muhammad?
Is the Wilders film any more offensive than this:
If it is more offensive, what makes it so- particularly in light of the fact that all of the events re-produced in Fitna actually occurred?
Whither the outrage when violent text are juxtaposed with violent news reel, but no outrage for the utter denigration of the central figure in the World's (now) second largest religion?
Democrat Chairman Howard Dean called on Democrats to end their intra-party feud by July 1 and then called GOP Nominee John McCain a "blatant opportunist."
I understand Dean's plight. Even while his party fractures, the Dems needs to go on offense against their betters.
But is it wise for Dean to chasten a four-term Republican Senator for being an opportunist, when his leading Democrat opponent has yet to complete a full-term in the Senate?
Growing up on the Oklahoma plains, thoughts of the American West, Cowboys and Indians were never far from my mind (though I did grow up in the 1980s). Being the enfant terrible that I was, my family was predisposed to set aside one weekend each winter and make the long drive down to Bexar County, Texas- all in order to indulge my childhood fixation: the battle of the Alamo.
Some kids had He-Man and Battle Cat. I had Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie.
Long will I recall the bustle of San Antonio's business district as our ubiquitously massive Chevy Conversion van wound its way amid the narrow streets and traffic. Soon we would arrive at the Mecca (or at least the Medina) of my youth, nary a cobblestone away from the hallowed Halls of Texan Independence. We would then spend the remainder of afternoon seeing all of the Alamo's exhibits, strolling the River Walk, and, of course, visiting the gift shop. I distinctly recall pestering the 'rents for either a Bowie knife or a mock 'Old Betsy', Davy Crockett's gun. By the time our trips to San Antonio ceased, I had amassed more than enough weaponry to arm the small militia that was my friends.
Given this slightly nerdy, youthful, indiscretion, one of my all-time favorite movies growing up was John Wayne's The Alamo. In fact, it may still rank in my top ten (don't judge). But a large part of what made that particular re-telling of the Alamo battle legendary for me was the performance by Richard Widmark who starred as the consummate Texas volunteer Jim Bowie.
In the 1960 film, Widmark's character is a wise-cracking, down-home, tough guy with a scorn for military superfluities and a particular disdain for Col. William Barret Travis. Despite the tension in the ranks, Bowie's volunteer force stays-on to help Davy Crockett and the Tennessans. Soon thereafter the battle begins, and Widmark's character is maimed in early hours of the assault. Eventually, the Mexican forces break through the Alamo's crumbling barracks, setting up the film's denouement. Ailing, with only his servant for protection, Widmark's character falls guns blazing when Gen. Santa Anna's Mexican forces break through. Out of ammunition, Bowie dies wielding his famed Bowie knife, taking more than a handful of Mexican soldiers with him into the next life.
Naturally, today finds me a bit sad to report that Richard Widmark passed away today at age 93. I doubt he passed guns blazing, but in the imagination of my much younger, childhood self, he always will.
With the start of baseball season underway, it is only appropriate to 'leadoff' (sorry.) with a post about America's favorite past time.
Sadly, this one is as much about politics as it is about Opening Day. I justify this by the fact that the BoSox opened in Tokyo. Because I cannot countenance them playing the first game of the season there, this naturally illegitimates the season opener in my warped mind.
I digress.
You know politics down in Washington has reached a particularly acrimonious level when Republicans and Democrats can't even agree over Baseball. But the news out of the Beltway is that this is exactly the case. Talk about who's on first...
According to the report from Sports Illustrated, GOP Rep. Tom Davis questions the Democrat majority's findings of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Democrats have suggested that Roger Clemens might have lied to the committee and passed along the case to the Department of Justice. Republicans intend to pass along to the Attorney General a conflicting account along the following lines:
And the Republicans question why the Democrats cast doubt on Clemens' testimony that he received B-12 shots because teams' medical records do not show such injections; the minority report notes that Yankees trainer Gene Monahan testified his team did not always keep records about B-12. And the report mentions interviews with two team doctors and two trainers about whether Clemens had an abscess, but no witness corroborated McNamee's testimony on that subject.
One might expect baseball fans to be rabid partisans of their particular team. But who knew Congress could reach a similar divide over the same sport? It is perhaps not irrelevant that five of the Democrat members of the committee hail from New England (Red Sox fans?)- the most of any region. By contrast, only one Republican on the same committee is from New England.
This analysis alone tells us that politics has too much infiltrated our love of the game.
I took a glance back through my Easter posts from the past three years and discovered something a bit unsettling. Far from being an annual rite, my musings on Easter have legitimately occurred only once on the actual day during the entire span.
In 2005, I mused on Easter Sunday about love and my generation's ability to effect change. In 2006, I wrote a lengthy piece on Good Friday discussing Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, evaluating how the human inclination to question life confronts Easter's message of redemption. But I wrote nothing on Easter Sunday. In 2007, I wrote only that it was cold- no thanks to global warming.
The trip down memory lane just taken is more than a supercilious critique of any personal inconsistency. Looking back is useful in that it reminds us of where we have come from and where we are going. That is certainly the case in this blog, but more importantly, it is in large part the case with Easter. For believers, we pause amid life's whirl and acknowledge the resurrection of our Savior in roughly 33 A.D. For secularists, some look to conflate so arcane a message with something more meaningful.
Still, all sides recall. All sides reflect- even if the ruminations fall in different ways.
In turn, today's headlines are filled with stories about the economic downturn besetting our Nation. Story after story questions why we have reached the present economic crossroads. A few stories offer lessons. From today's Washington Post, we are reminded that along with an inclination to question, we also have a unique proclivity for greed.
From today's New York Times, we are reminded that prior to the current fix, bankers made questionable trades, banks took on tremendous risk, and homeowners sought to buy houses they could not afford (at no money down). The bottom line was the bottom line. Eventually, bad returns could not longer be shielded by creative bookkeeping. This past week, the Wall Street firm Bear Sterns fell as a result.
The common ground is that so often life poses before us choices we cannot fully apprehend. Had the investment community understood the sheer magnitude of risk, one might conclude that they would not have created such elaborate financial products aimed at risk transferral, and assumption. The same is true of faith. If we knew now the full measure of our decision between faith in Christ and unbelief, it would be far easier to decide whether belief or unbelief was the better course throughout life. But in practice we have no such omniscience.
In my private journal, I wrote last Easter about being in limbo as to my ultimate law school destination. The outcome has been the product of a choice I did not fully apprehend. Different schools offered different opportunities. Choosing one would lead to vastly different paths than the others. Moreover, whether one school was the 'right' school, left me cloaked in mystery. For me, the decision became a matter of faith, and I made my selection in due course. Today I write this post from my Tucson apartment.
The reality of that Easter remains the same this Easter: I still do not apprehend the full measure of my own existence (nor do you). We all live day to day by grace.
For believers, the Easter message is that not only do we not apprehend the full measure of our existence, but we have no need for such apprehension. We have no need for this understanding because, perhaps even more radically, we do not have possessory rights to our own life. At best we are life stewards over the time we have been given. (Romans 14.8).
When a believer considers the bevy of choices that face us day to day, this creates complications. Not only are we called to trust God through faith, but we are also called to follow God in obedience. Thus, the Easter message is magnified: even while we celebrate Christ's death and resurrection for our sins, we are reminded that it is not without obligation that we are saved. (Romans 14.7). Embracing the unconditional acceptance offered by Christ, requires nothing less than our unashamed surrender to Christ. Our lot becomes the acknowledgment that His right of purchase over us supersedes any right we have to ourselves.
In sum, my point on this Resurrection Sunday is simply to state the obvious. Salvation is about more than just the forgiveness of sins. Easter reminds us that believers are bought with a price. We accept Christ on His terms. We confess where we were in sin. We confess where we aspire to faithfully go: with Christ in obedience come what may.
Money Magazine had an interesting article today discussing the differences between public perception of a recession and the rubric actually used by economist to define the term. Suffice it to say, there is a marked disconnect between the two.
According to Money, economists take quite a different view from public perception:
Economists' definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, and though growth was sluggish in the last quarter - 0.6% - the U.S. economy has not yet shown one quarter of retraction.
Of course, go down to your local bar and the 'experts' there will tell you something rather different:
Of the more than 1,000 adult Americans conducted March 14-16 , 74% said they believe the nation is now in a recession. That figure rose from 66% in February and 61% in January.
While job losses are up, I would suggest that most Americans adopt the idea of a recession because of two factors:
1) Rising gas prices. 2) Rising inflation.
Neither spell the death knell of the U.S. economy, but these two ills combined have a striking manifestation in the household ledger. They certainly do on mine. Granted, as a student I am much more insulated from the financial worries facing many.
Still, despite the gloomy news, most Americans looks for a turn around in '09 according to the survey. Economists tend to agree.
So, in answer to the question, we're not in a recession yet- thought we might legitimately call it a funk. Even economies have identity/life crises from time to time.
After a week of taking heat from the Dems for his Sunni-Shiite mix gaffe, GOP Nominee, Sen. John McCain respond to the volley of foreign policy criticisms being launched from the left.
At a press conference in London, Sen. McCain said:
Well, we all misspeak from time to time, and I immediately corrected it...Just as Sen. Obama said he was looking forward to meeting the President of Canada, we all misspeak from time to time.
The remark was so witty, I felt the need to do a little research.
Thanks to the Canadian National Post, I was able to find the original story here.
Given the truth of Obama's gaffe, I would rate McCain's witty comeback an eight out of ten. For those keeping score at home, McCain is a four term Senator.
Given a guy who has been in Washington that long, that's not bad at all.
The American economy has seen better days. No one questions this point.
But the approaches which have been offered for dealing with the fix could not be more varied or disparate.
NYT columnist and liberal economist Paul Krugman offers readers a history lesson of sorts likening the present economic slump to the Great Depression. His conclusion of the matter (after the history lesson, of course) is the following:
Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed are doing all they can to end that vicious circle. We can only hope that they succeed. Otherwise, the next few years will be very unpleasant — not another Great Depression, hopefully, but surely the worst slump we’ve seen in decades.
My sense is that there seems to be widespread agreement about the anemic dollar. The price of gold has soared since stocks began falling, primarily as a result of the dollar's weakness against other foreign currencies. Forbes critique of the Bush Administration's failure to deal with this longstanding problem is fair.
As for the spending reductions, here Forbes' solution seems a bit askance. Part of the problem is that financial institutions are panicked exactly because they might have to writedown actual losses on their mortgages. Then again, Forbes' solution is a long-term solution to an immediate problem. The steps taken by the Fed in recent days, as Forbes notes, only provide a band-aid to a hemorrhage.
The real solution must come in addressing the long-term policy issue.
Their suggestions aside, I think the articles underscore well the differences between liberals and conservatives. I won't be so trite as to argue that one view is backward-looking and the other solution-oriented. Though I believe this is true.
I do believe, however, that it represents fundamentally different ways of approaching problems. Liberals engage from a far more theoretical framework, while conservatives take a very practical, hands-on approach.
As Kipling might say, and never the twain shall meet.
According to the directors, the intent was not to make a 'political' film. But escaping from Gitmo is a much different beast than a stoned trip to White Castle. Having seen some of the footage available on-line and the obvious tension created by the title alone, it is hard to say whether the politics of the production will trump the humor or not.
Below is one of the trailers which were pre-released a couple of months ago. Take a look and decide for yourself.
Note: While the content is not explicit, there is some bad language and crude humor (it is a Harold and Kumar movie, after all). Viewer discretion mildly advised.
I suppose it's always gratifying as an up-start blogger to see one's perspective validated by pundits who matter. Perhaps that remains consistent throughout life.
Even so, yesterday's post about the Obama speech's saw a record number of hits for Pax Plena. Today, former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson weighed in offering a similar assessment.
Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama made a mea cupla speech of sorts this afternoon in Philadelphia intending to calm the media frenzy surrounding racist and anti-American comments made by his Pastor Jeremiah Wright
See video of the Jeremiah Wright's comments below.
The strongest Sen. Obama came to making a full condemnation of the above was the following:
"[The comments] were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity."
Not only were the comments wrong, they were (gasp) divisive! For shame. Sadly, this portion of the speech reflects, perhaps, the most startling aspect of whole thing-Sen. Obam's nonchalant assessment of his pastor's comments.
Sen. Obama summarized:
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
Sen. Obama went on to conclude that "the real culprits" of such misplaced anger are the corporations and the market. Damn the man.
Examining the text above, Sen. Obama suggests that Americans are to blame for their reaction to Rev. Wright's comments. Obama's implication is that the anger from Rev. Wright would not be surprising if America were less segregated. He observes that such anger, as expressed by Rev. Wright is real, powerful and that condemning it without understanding it harms race relations.
Such views are typical of the far left but mainstream Americans needed to hear a different message. Sen. Obama needed to convince Americans that he is different than his pastor. He needed to assuage doubt about his world view. He needed to communicate that his spiritual beliefs are profoundly different than the hate speech emanating from the pulpit of Trinity Church where Rev. Wright preaches. Americans needed to hear that Sen. Obama believes America should be blessed by God, rather than damned. In all of these important areas, Sen. Obama missed the mark.
Really, it was surprisingly underwhelming. Condemning Wright's remarks while explaining them only belies the real message he needed to communicate. Sen. Obama's message on Wright's screed need not be nuanced. It need not be finessed. It should have been relatively short. Instead, Sen. Obama produced a 4,865 word oration which left audiences confused as to whether he supports or disapproves of his Pastor's views.
With tense race relations, wars and a looming recession, Americans need to know that their next leader will be a different kind of leader- one uniquely positioned to guide America through difficult times.
Today's speech proved that Sen. Obama is merely politics as usual. Sen. Obama needed to show that his rhetoric of hope is more than just vapid words. In this, he utterly failed.
Wow. It's hard to believe but I nearly forgot one of my favorite holidays for want of work.
I guess it helps that it isn't much of a holiday here in the desert. Perhaps I'm just spoiled since it pales in comparison to celebrations going on right now up in Boston.
Ah, memories. I'll never forget my first St. Patrick's Day in Beantown- drinking green beer at Kennedy's just off of Province Street. Enjoying the live music.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind forgetting my second St. Patrick's Day there- well St. Patrick's Day weekend as it turned out. Chalk that one up to youthful indiscretions. Good times all around.
Anyway, here's wishing you and your Irish eyes a Happy St. Paddy's Day! Have a pint for me.
Update: For those who care, I plan to be here tonight around 9pm celebrating with a buddy on his b-day. Do drop by and say hello. I'll be the person not wearing green. Feel free to pinch but let's keep things appropriate. Or not.
Having been up the better part of the past 24 hours this Pax Plena song of the week seems only appropriate. Last week we featured southern gospel. This week a gospel of romance. If that were so, Frank Sinatra's In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning would easily be among the hymns. Nary has there been a time when such simple lyrics were so profound.
Sinatra has long been considered the gold standard of the crooner era. But what makes this recording especially unique is that it was recorded in just three days during a lengthy session in March of 1954. It would go on to become Ol' Blue Eyes first full 12-inch LP, and the first concept album ever released. The album itself consisted primarily of ballads; it's theme according to wikipedia "organized around a central mood of late-night isolation and aching lost love."
There's really no describing what ought to be listened to so I will simply add that the song is absolutely as billed above. For those who have loved and lost, for those who have embraced the early hours of twilight, for those who have merely wondered from afar, this song is for you. Please enjoy the Pax Plena song of the week, Sinatra's own In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning.
In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning
In the wee small hours of the morning, While the whole wide world is fast asleep, You lie awake and think about the girl, And never ever think of counting sheep.
When your lonely heart has learned its lesson, You'd be hers if only she would call. In the wee small hours of the morning, Thats the time you miss her most of all.
Well, one is running for President. The other dead. And the last a liberal bulwark. My money is on not much.
But the Boston Globe produced, easily, the most surprising headline of the week in an astounding op-ed comparing Republican nominee Sen. John McCain to "Old blood and guts" Gen. George Patton.
The connection between the two still seems a little fuzzy even after reading, but any piece from the Boston Globe that acknowledges the reality of shifting public opinion on Iraq is a welcomed surprise.
Written by Jeff Jacoby, the column cited recent pew surveys positing that some 53% of Americans opaquely believe the U.S. will 'achieve its goals' in Iraq.
Granted, as the article notes, a lot can happen between now and November. But when liberal publications talk about winning in Iraq it's good for the country.
It also doesn't hurt that the op-ed ran on the heels of Sen. McCain's touchdown in Baghdad today.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, House Democrats are taking heat for months-long delayed voting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that empowers federal intelligence agencies with the authority to listen in on foreign terrorist conversations with U.S. citizens.
Voter action ads were run in several battle ground states, including Arizona, blasting Speaker Pelosi for her lack of leadership on the issue. According to analysts, the move is widely regarded as yet another embarrassment for Speaker Pelosi. In turn, the Speaker bowed to reality and held closed door hearings on the measure.
In the Presidential race, the barbs continue to fly as a fractured Democrat Party is now almost certainly on course for a brokered convention which will leave the Democrat base in tatters. For shame. But the race from Sen. Clinton's campaign has turned almost comically nasty. Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro's racist comments about Sen. Barack Obama garnered significant attention from the press. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign due to all of the negative attention.
As a result, Democrat Party leaders were quick to squelch any hope of a Democrat "dream team" featuring Obama and Clinton. It always sounded more like a nightmare to me but either way America will not have to suffer.
And finally, just to add insult to injury, beleaguered Democrat Chairman Howard Dean finds himself the odd man out and has issued a coup de grace against the battleground State of Florida in response (not to be confused with rapper Flo Rida). Apparently it makes sense in Dean's "50 State Strategy," to disenfranchise Floridians.
I'm no fan of Perez Hilton- or the Huffington Post for that matter, but I have to confess my surprise at seeing the story of an unremarkable Oklahoma Legislator plastered across their sites. While it may seem like Oklahoma never strays far from the pages here at Pax Plena, the story on the websites, Rep. Sally Kern's comments, and the whole social controversy it has engendered proved to be far too enticing to refrain from offering some thoughts. I just can't help myself, as it were. Do forgive that it is a couple of days late.
So, what of Rep. Sally Kern? Well, according to the Associated Press her remarks about homosexuality before a Christian organization were, shall we say, a bit controversial.
According to the Associated Press, Kern made the following points:
*The homosexual agenda is just destroying this nation and poses a bigger threat to the U.S. than terrorism or Islam."
*I'm not gay-bashing. But according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle.
*Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades...It is not a lifestyle that is good for this nation.
*I was talking about an agenda. I was not talking about individuals.
For what its worth, Representative Kern is married to a Southern Baptist minister- the adopted denomination of yours truly. Perez Hilton had the video below linked-to on his site. It features Rep. Kern's comments in part while artfully embedding a silent protest from gay organizations and their allies.
A few thoughts.
First, how odd it must have been for Rep. Kern to leave the relative obscurity of her office in the Oklahoma legislature over the weekend to suddenly rise to infamy among gays and the left. The Kern story made the AP wire and was featured on every major cable news channel including whole segments on CNN and Fox News.
As noted above, Kern's comments were also featured on every major left-wing blog from Perez Hilton, to the Huffington Post to Crooks and Liars. Their comments were all relatively similar. Below is a sampling of some reactions.
From Perez Hilton, Oklahomans receive this sage exhortation:
The entire state of Oklahoma should be ashamed of THIS!
His commenters up him one better:
#25 - Paul says – reply to this
That woman should be … educated. Or just shot in the head. Crazy bitch!
Another estimable commenter offered this assessment:
#35 - Laura says – reply to this
WHAT A DISGUSTING THING! WHAT A TERRIBLE AND DILUTED WOMAN!! SHE NEEDS A KICK IN THE ASS
One individual, clearly schooled in theology, proffered:
#46 - angelina says – reply to this
i cannot fucking believe that hate like this is still running rampant like a disease. when will people understand, live together or die alone. god loves EVERYONE, this stupid b**** is tainting jesus name too by being ridiculous. let people love who this want to love. i sincerely and genuinely hope things turn for the better , id ont want my kids listening to crap like this video. (sic.)
Just to underscore the outrage, it's worth noting that the comments were similar over at the Huffington Post- if not slightly better written.
Columnist Kirk Snyder began by adding his two cents, urging Oklahomans to take up arms against the evil that is Sally Kern:
Every thinking citizen of this country should write to Rep. Chris Benge, Speaker of the House for the Oklahoma House of Representatives asking for censure of this terrorist. Free speech is not a license to incite hate and violence, and sadly that is what this ugly oration is all about. Today, in regions all over this country where ignorant people actually accept these stupid lies as having some basis in fact, school-aged boys and girls who may appear a little more feminine or masculine than Sally thinks is appropriate are going to be terrorized by peers who listen to this crap because their parents listen to this crap. And that's just for starters. This type of terrorism is the genesis of all hate crimes from name calling to murder.
George Bush may have had one thing right. The war on terror begins at home. But instead of profiling innocent Americans simply because of their ethnic background, maybe we should start profiling elected officials who make speeches without any academic or factual merit as a means to exploit and manipulate their uneducated constituents. If Oklahoma is where the wind comes sweeping down the plain, perhaps a big gust will sweep Sally Kern out of office and to a place where she can no longer promote hate, violence and bigotry.
From Snyder, readers learn a few interesting points about America: Those who disagree with homosexuality and speak out against its agenda actually incite hate and violence as a result of their "ugly" and vile oration. Further, all who would dare to offer a contrary view of homosexuality than Snyder's are in fact terrorists. How fortunate America is to have such a learned diplomat like Kirk Snyder of the Huffington Post to provide so astute a clarification on the issue.
Unsurprisingly, his commenters echoed his very moderate view- though they seemed more disenchanted with religion generally:
these so-called christians give jesus a bad name
Another commenter found solace in Kern's remarks as a justification for abandoning her faith:
In fact I know of 2 or three people that said more or less the same things. That if two people of the same sex get married that is a greater threat to "Our way of life" than the war. A good Christian said this. This is why I no longer go to church.
Still another, turned the tables on her assumed party, noting the hypocrisy of Democrats on the issue of gay rights and their abject failure to defend the gay community in a meaningful way:
Any attempt by Democratic leaders to go after this hateful creature only exposes their own hypocrisy with respect to the right of gays and lesbians to form families that are recognized by the state. Either Sally Kern is right and gays and lesbians are a threat to the American way of life or they are a group of Americans who are being denied their fundamental human right to form legally sanctioned families. You can't keep having it both ways, saying to gays, "We'll defend you from the most vicious verbal attacks but when it comes to real equality, forget about it."
So, what sense can we glean from the madness? It would be too trite to say, "nonsense" so I'll refrain but here are a couple of points of order.
Let's begin with the easy points. First, we will handle Snyder's comment about Rep. Kern's re-election prospects. Despite Snyder's poetic reference to Oklahoma! my forecast is that Rep. Kern will be just fine in her Oklahoma City district. Oklahoma generally is among the most conservative states in the union and Oklahoma City consistently remains a Republican stronghold. In Okie City, churches out number bars and Kern's comments fairly reflect the views of the majority of the state. In sum, oblique references to Rogers & Hammerstein's Oklahoma! seem to the only familiarity Snyder has with the Sooner State's politics.
Second, what drew the greatest ire from the left and the press was Kern's comment about the homosexual agenda vis-à-vis terrorism and Islam. My sense of things is that this particular comment evoked out cry for two reasons. First, it presumed that gays have an agenda. Second, it alleged that the homosexual agenda is a greater treat to America than the threat of Islamofascism.
Taking the first point, the umbrage expressed seems disingenuous of gay rights proponents. The very notion of gay marriage bespeaks an agenda. It may be a sedate agenda, in their view, but it is an agenda nonetheless. In fact, their goal is actually quite clear: to socially acclimate American culture to the idea of gay couples marrying. But make no mistake, were the movement to be successful, it would represent a profound shift of public opinion and a deviation from all of recorded history. But the more germane point, is that it would represent the success of a concerted public relations effort on the part of committed gay rights activists to change public perception and the laws of the United States- whether through the Congress or the Courts. In light of this reality, simply calling a spade a spade and noting that the homosexual agenda is, in fact, an agenda should be fairly benign to most reasonable minds.
Taking the second point about the gay agenda vis-à-vis terrorism and Islam, if we are to assume I am correct on the first point (that an agenda is an agenda) then it is utterly unsurprising that individuals would, on the basis of their values, prioritize competing policy issues against one another. Thus, Kern's remark that homosexuality is a greater threat to America than Islamofascism simply reflects her prioritization of the issues.
We might disagree with her prioritization. We can even quibble over whether or not her priorities represents the top concerns of her district. But we cannot call Rep. Kern merely an aberrant fool bent on inciting hate and violence. At best, she is a legislator speaking to her policy priorities in a conservative state- presumably before a group of constituents and supporters.
Third, it was interesting that so many of the comments noted were only too pleased to dismiss Kern's remarks as gay-bashing. In her defense, Kern expressly said that her comments were not gay bashing as she singled out no person, however, she then proceeded to undermine her point by qualifying her remarks to note that not all lifestyles are equal; and by citing unspecified studies which purportedly show no society that has embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades.
Here, I can, to some extent, sympathize with the frustration of my colleagues on the left. It is unfortunate that Rep. Kern cited studies but made no direct references to those about which she spoke. On the other hand, their frustration with Kern's declared intolerant reference to not all lifestyles being equal deserves further scrutiny.
Consider the following example. A recent article I read discussed the effects of lifestyle on insomnia. Despite being relevant for personal reasons, it was interesting to me that the article overtly argued that not all lifestyles are equal. The individuals within the text made subjective lifestyle choices which negatively impacted their ability to sleep. The point of mentioning the article is that even experts are inclined to make objective judgment calls about the subjective lifestyles of individuals. It could be, perhaps, that insomnia is not big a deal to the affected. Perhaps the insomniac chooses her habits without respect to sleep. This could denote her utter lack of value for its restorative properties. In turn, who are the 'experts' to write off their lifestyle choice and dismiss one as better than another?
In the present matter, given, the disparate treatment of the views expressed, we are left, then, to question what makes one lifestyle better than another. We can rightly assume that this standard will be subjectively wrought though objectively applied- not unlike the article on insomnia. This, of course, means that any analysis of the standard must be made within the same subjective context in which it was created, while its objective manifestation via application can be debated objectively.
Here, Kern made her remarks within a theological context while speaking to a Christian organization. She made no reference to any particular person, though she did speak out quite robustly against the gay movement and her perception of its harm. Is this hate speech? Some quarters mentioned above clearly answer in the affirmative. But before we are quick to call it hate, let us consider whether is it any more hateful than the comments I previously sampled for readers. Rep. Kern had her life threatened. She was called a variety of slurs. One erudite commenter suggested shooting her in the head. Yet, a deafening silence filled the message boards and no outrage was found on point. One could argue convincingly that Rep. Kern has been singled out and persecuted for speaking to her religious beliefs in public. Strangely, no zealous advocates of tolerance and religious freedom took this position. Is this tolerance?
Perez Hilton wailed that all Oklahomans should be outraged at Kern's comments. But let us join Perez and suppose for a moment that we actually value tolerance and a diversity of opinion. Why then should the majority of Oklahomans who are social conservatives be outraged at all? Is it tolerant to reject the perspective shared by the majority of citizens in a state wholesale? Is this tolerance?
Perhaps we could make much ado by evaluating Kern's remarks as a proposition of theology? Well, we could make much ado, except that her comments do not deviate much at all from the theological positions taken by most Christian denominations within United States. We can disagree with the theological positions taken but does it really make sense to blame Kern for a loss of faith as one commenter did above? Is that tolerance?
The questions posed above obviously raise the eponymous dilemma I suggested in the title: whither this myth of tolerance? By way of definition, Tolerance.org, a gay-allied organization, claims as its mission a commitment to being the principal online destination for people interested in dismantling bigotry and creating, in hate's stead, communities that value diversity. But this agenda, so stated, actually speaks to the subversive nature of its elements. The implication is that a diversity of views are welcomed by Tolerance.org- but only so long as those views in no way contravene the views held by the organization (viz., its gay-allied position).
The same is true in Kern's case. The point is adequately substantiated by the comments sampled above. The outcry expressed among the commenters was not actually over a net loss of tolerance or that Kern made an especially hateful or bigoted comment. The real controversy is that Kern's remarks disagreed with the agenda of those people who cried offense. That they were theologically sound according to most Christian doctrine, that they were uttered before a religious group, that they were reflective of the views of a majority of Oklahomans mattered little. They were bigoted and Kern is a terrorist, according to Snyder. It this tolerance?
Reasonable minds might be inclined to say, no, this is not tolerance.
But ultimately, the myth of tolerance besetting Rep. Kern is nothing new to the social wars here in these United States. In fact, the myth of tolerance was pithily summarized by Ronald Reagan some twenty years ago: "The tolerance of a liberal only extends to other liberals."
My favorite guilty pleasure in posting the Pax Plena Song of the Week segment is the quiet aside I get to spend traipsing among memories past, listening to the songs I select.
For many who grew up and attended church in the south, I suspect this song of the week will surely bring an abundance of memories all their own. Written during the golden age of itinerant preaching, Ira F. Stanphill's 1950 hymn I Know Who Holds Tomorrow melds the delicate lyrics of contemplation with a soft melody that grows in strength and truth.
The legend behind the hymn according to a religious blog is that Stanphill wrote I Know Who Holds Tomorrow during the dissolution of his marriage. According to acquaintances, Stanphill's wife grew tired of his ministry during its zenith and left him to pursue a career of her own in entertainment. Sadly, she was killed in a car crash sometime thereafter. The lyrics aptly convey the emotions of listlessness and doubt Ira Stanphill encountered while going through such a difficult period in life.
What makes the song especially meaningful to yours truly is that it so accurately reflects the present nature of life's spatial plane. For the recovering poets among us, Stanphill's song may bring to mind of Yeats' reflections on autumn:
"Let us part, ere the season of passion forget us with a kiss and a tear on they drooping brow."
If Yeats reminds us that seasons of passion and love are perennially moving targets, then Stanphill simply extends the metaphor a bit further to say that all of life is a moving target; and the only certainty we have is vested in the One Who Holds Tomorrow.
The conclusion, then, for twenty-somethings, is that the most steadfast, bedrock, take-it-to-the-bank promise of life is uncertainty. Or to put it more abstractly, uncertainty is our only certitude. And it is exactly this certitude that is so beautifully captured in song by Stanphill. The lesson of I Know Who Holds Tomorrow is that even inasmuch as we try to figure it all out, we cannot know which course is the best in life until hindsight blinds us by the force of its illumination. The song simply communicates that this is as it should be, for all of life is trial and error.
Given my present circumstance, the reality of uncertainty as embodied in the Stanphill song is intriguing. So often, I try to micro-manage my life even down to the quarter-hour. But the reality is that I'm not guaranteed the next second much less the next 15 minutes, half-hour, or day - much less tomorrow. This is not to say that the particular message of the song is that we are without choice. Even while we may feel subject to the fates, we are in control of the choices we make between hither and yon. Indeed, it is somewhat reassuring in the song that we have been in control all along. What the song does is reassure us that this moment is not all there is, even though it is all we have been given.
The broader point of the song, then, is that we can never know what tomorrow holds for our lives unfold in a series of moments. And the Giver of Moments stands by, holds our hand, and tells us, 'this uncertainty is, ok.'
With this in mind, please enjoy the robust baritone of Gospel Music Hall of fame legend George Younce as he sings Ira Stanphill's I Know Who Holds Tomorrow.
I Know Who Holds Tomorrow
By Ira F. Stanphill
I don't know about tomorrow;
I just live from day to day.
I don't borrow from its sunshine
For its skies may turn to grey.
I don't worry o'er the future,
For I know what Jesus said.
And today I'll walk beside Him,
For He knows what is ahead.
Many things about tomorrow
I don't seem to understand
But I know who holds tomorrow
And I know who holds my hand.
Every step is getting brighter
As the golden stairs I climb;
Every burden's getting lighter,
Every cloud is silver-lined.
There the sun is always shining,
There no tear will dim the eye;
At the ending of the rainbow
Where the mountains touch the sky.
Many things about tomorrow
I don't seem to understand
But I know who holds tomorrow
And I know who holds my hand.
I don't know about tomorrow;
It may bring me poverty.
But the one who feeds the sparrow,
Is the one who stands by me.
And the path that is my portion
May be through the flame or flood;
But His presence goes before me
And I'm covered with His blood.
Many things about tomorrow
I don't seem to understand
But I know who holds tomorrow
And I know who holds my hand...
By now, news of the Federal prostitution sting swirling around New York Governor Elliot Spitzer (or Client #9 as he is more affectionately referred to among his closest associates) is old hat.
Given my posts over the weekend, it seems only appropriate to give a final, bitter-sweet update from the Oklahoma Class 2A Women's Basketball championship. The Walters Lady Devils lost a controversial state title game to Pocola, 56-58.
The word from the Associated Press (Author's Note: the AP covering my hometown? Words cannot describe how odd this is.) and my kid sister who was in attendance is that the game was lost for Walters in the closing seconds.
Apparently, Walters was fouled in the final 7/10s of a second. The Walters free-throw shooter connected on both shots putting the Lady Devils up by two points 56-54.
Thinking the game was over, the Walters bench mistakenly cleared in celebration given the time remaining on the clock. This was not the case and an over-zealous official (probably from Pocola) called a team technical foul.
Pocola, then, went to the line and connected on one of two free throws, putting the score at 56-55. Unfortunately for Walters, the Pocola shooter proved much more adept at inbounding than at shooting, as she inbounded the ball to a wide-open teammate who nailed the game-winning three-pointer.
Walters fell, 58-56.
I could say much about the officiating of the game as described to me. I might ask whether a technical foul was an appropriate penalty under the circumstances. I might inquire as to whether or not officials should decide the outcome of a state championship on the basis noted above. But ultimately, such questions would avail little. An entire team of young girls will remain disappointed and the state championship won by Pocola will remain clouded with the specter of 'what if.' Besides, an entire town of 2,500 people tucked away in Southwest Oklahoma will almost certainly do this job with much more aplomb and color than I ever could.
And so, I will simply offer a hearty congratulations to the 2007-2008 Walters Lady Devils Basketball team. Here's wishing you all the best in luck and in life and here's hoping for a better turn-about next season.
From an ever-proud native son of Walters, Oklahoma: Go blue!
Update: Commenters over at the Tulsa World don't buy Pocola's win either. They raise the simple point, how can you square and aim from half-court with 0.7 seconds?
The solution above proposed by a Norwegian whaling-lobby, High North Alliance, may seem similar to satirist Jonathan Swift's "modest proposal." On the contrary, it was actually a serious idea out of Europe intended to raise awareness of climate change and pro-whaling issues.
Borrowing from Al Gore's theories about carbon footprints and other fictions, the group reasons that the meat from beef, chicken and pork each create greater carbon footprints per animal than does meat from whales.
Naturally, environmental organizations such as Greenpeace were apoplectic. But their response may surprise you:
The survival of a species is more important than lower greenhouse gas emissions from eating it," said Truls Gulowsen of Greenpeace.
Not to split hairs but their response seems feeble at best.
Given organizations that have committed themselves to 'battling' climate change, which have also embraced Al Gore's concern over personal carbon footprints, one might reasonably conclude that greenhouse gas emissions is a more pressing concern than the loss of a species. So, why not eat more whale if it means a concurrent reduction in the need for raising the meat of other animals- to say nothing of its assumed reduction in energy costs? Therefore, the conclusion reached by the High North Alliance is perfectly rational.
But as the Greenpeace response indicates, some leftist, environmental groups are more concerned with saving animal species than with saving our own species from the looming 'catastrophe,' which is popularly alleged to beset it. The logic follows that the loss of even one species is a greater danger to our poor planet than all of the emissions pumped into Earth's atmosphere by our cars. Silly Al Gore, they say.
For liberals caught between a rock and a hard place, perhaps the better solution is to take a lesson from King Solomon and split the baby in half. How do we do this? Simple. We raise all of the chickens, cows and pigs in the ocean. That way, we lose no species AND we save our own.
Or perhaps the simple lesson is that given left-wing environmental positions there is no way human beings can win?
Update: The Walters Lady Devils bested undefeated and top-ranked Konawa tonight 78-68 in the Oklahoma Class 2A women's basketball semifinals!
The next stop is, of course, the Big House at the Oklahoma state fair grounds in Oklahoma City. Walters will square-off against the Pocola Lady Indians (22-4) for the Class 2A State Championship.
Although I have lived in many different parts of the country, the town always nearest my thoughts is my hometown back in sleepy Walters, Oklahoma.
Whenever the opportunity arises, I take great pride in reporting on good news from the home folk and this year's Lady Devil Basketball team is a welcomed break from the grind of politics and social commentary.
The Walters Lady Devils basketball team reached the Oklahoma Class 2A Semifinals last night with a come from behind win over Stroud.
The Lady Devils boasting a (26-1) record will square off against undefeated Konawa this afternoon at Southern Nazarene University up in Oklahoma City. The winner will go on to the "Big House" and compete for the State Title on Saturday.
By all accounts it has been a remarkable season for Walters. Led by a talented group of up-start, underclassmen, the Walters Lady Devils look to be a formidable presence in Class 2A basketball for the next few years to come. It also helps that the Lady Devils have been here before. Despite their youth, the team is actually quite veteran. This state tourney go-around marks the second appearance for Walters in as many years.
The Lady Devils exited early last season losing to Preston in the first round. But what a difference a year makes! This season the Lady Devils have rocked to a third place ranking in the state, losing only once to class 4A Elgin. Led by freshman Cassadie Holybee, the Lady Devils will look to extend their streak tonight.
With so many distractions facing young people today, it's exciting for me to see Walters fired up about the State Tournament. Sadly, athletics is often ridiculed as being more important than academics in rural high schools but this neglects the intangible life lessons students learn about competition and teamwork as a result of their participation in high school athletics. Whether in the classroom, the workplace, or even the boardroom, the ideals of competition, drive, and perseverance learned on the court will remain valuable tools that will serve these high school athletes .
So, from Pax Plena, and an erstwhile Walters resident, here's wishing the Walters Lady Devils all the best against Konawa.
It is far too premature to begin discussing running mates and the like. I realize this. But what else have we to discuss with the state of politics in such limbo?
From surprising quarters, whispers have begun to name the names purportedly on Sen. McCain's shortlist for VP. Oddly, it was the establishment publication the Washington Times which made a compelling case that former AR Gov. Mike Huckabee should be offered the #2 spot on the GOP ticket.
The numbers argument made in the piece is compelling. Huckabee clearly attracts a core part of the GOP base. As outlined yesterday, picking Huck could help assuage some concerns about McCain's socially conservative record (viz., it would ease mine).
Time will tell, but it is interesting that such a beltway bulwark would be among the first to proffer Gov. Huckabee as a VP contender.
Granted, the questions about John McCain's socially conservative bona fides have been raised by the incorrigible Wolf Blitzer. Granted, Blitzer's inclination toward objectivity is somewhere around Roger Clemens credibility at a Congressional hearing.
But that Blitzer can even raise the issue at all seems to bespeak a serious problem with the GOP nominee.
Mitt Romney described the GOP agenda as stool. It's a stupid analogy. But his bigger point was well-taken. The GOP agenda rests on three-prongs: National Security, Fiscal Responsibility, and Pro-Traditional Values.
Indeed, missing from McCain's remarks was any reference to social issues...
In reflecting on Gov. Huckabee's campaign what seems most pronounced is its latent improbability. Commentators have already observed that it ended much like it began: a bit of a long-shot with insufficient funds.
One interpretation of the race is that while Mitt Romney's millions may not have purchased him the nomination, Huckabee's grassroots operation didn't fare any better. If anything, we can conclude of campaigns generally only that the more conventional the campaign, the more likely the win.
Sen. McCain's operation was, by all accounts, quite conventionally built. Big name advisers. Big spending on TV ads. And a massive, old-money Rolodex of fundraisers. Romney's operation was unconventional in both the amount of money lent to himself and its lack of broad-base of support. Huckabee's campaign had a broad base of evangelical support but operated under an unconventionally low budget. McCain seemed to build the best of both support and budget. His wins reflect that trend.
It is not without nostalgia that yours truly marks the end of Huck's campaign. We've followed his improbable route here at Pax Plena since the Governor first announced plans to run in December 2006.
What's unfortunate is Huckabee's exit also marks the exit of any impetus for introducing new ideas and innovations to the GOP platform. More than any other candidate in the GOP field, Huckabee seemed to understand the dire financial straits of much of the middle class. He also seemed uniquely poised to forge moderate compromises on issues with broad popular appeal (viz., the environment, and moderate positions on illegal immigration).
It also marks the end of a refreshing voice in an ocean of staid campaigners. On the stump, Huck's operation was unique. No candidate came close to Huckabee's every-man appeal. He played the bass guitar and featured prominently the endorsements of cult personalities Chuck Norris and pro-wrestler Ric Flair. His appearances on nearly every major news program provided wit and honesty which was well-taken by the press. His appearances on major entertainment outfits like the Colbert Report, and SNL, were even better received.
From here out, look for the the campaigns to be much less entertaining and much more of what we might expect from the Washington elite.
Then again, considering the Democrat opposition in Sens. Clinton and Obama, it will be hard for Republicans to become too disaffected by Sen. McCain's candidacy.
Expect that his record will be off-putting to the more ideologically driven- Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. But he will certainly govern better than either of the Democrat alternatives and probably closer to the center.
To Gov. Huckabee- thanks for the past year-plus. Here's best wishes from Pax Plena in your future endeavors.
The Pax Plena Song of the Week hearkens back to a bygone era of summer's past. The year was 1997. Titanic would open that winter and go on to become the top-grossing film of all time. The Green Bay Packers won the Super Bowl over the New England Patriots (lovely how history repeats itself). And The Notorious B.I.G. was gunned down on the mean streets of Los Angeles. RIP.
In all, 1997 was a wholly unremarkable year musically except for the entry of neo-60s group Smashmouth on to the America billboard scene. Smashmouth would eventually become the group most associated with late-1990s movie soundtracks (viz., the movie Shrek which featured the popular Monkees' cover I'm a Believer). But their inaugural hit and this week's song of the week, Walkin On the Sun, would become the ace that earned them both critical acclaim and cult status.
The song itself is overtly inspired by the 1960s. The bass line is driving. Its feel is a bit too funky to be dissimilar from the Beach Boys. The music video does much to cultivate this idea and to great effect. Suffice it to say, the surf influence is pronounced. The lyrics of the song are said to offer "an ironic and implied Generation X view of the hippie movement." Simply put, the lyrics more or less mock such hippie values as peace and love by exploring how those ideals become little more than commercial fads in the culture of Generation X- an assessment with which I'm not inclined to disagree.
But what makes the song interesting is how the nexus between the surf/hippie culture intersects with 90s era cynicism. Rarely do songs interact to create a cross-generational dynamic anymore- particularly songs by newer groups. But somehow Smashmouth managed to pull this off in their earliest days as professionals. The group would eventually go down the path of Shrek but for just this release, their music seemed more than the commercialism they would both bemoan and embrace.
More recently, I've found the song to be a great listen while driving about Tucson. Here, the faux-contemporary architecture of the 1950s adorns much of the landscape across the desert west. Beset on either side by palm trees, ranch style homes and pastels, one could nearly envision Smashmouth shooting their video with an 8mm camera while driving around town. Sun-drenched skies only add to the reality of walking on the sun.
In all, the song is a welcomed trip down memory lane. The funky video make it fun to remember a more innocent time and the naivety of youth railing against the culture.
Enjoy!
Walkin' On The Sun by Smashmouth
It ain't no joke I'd like to buy the world a toke And teach the world to sing in perfect harmony And teach the world to snuff the fires and the liars Hey I know it's just a song but it's spice for the recipe This is a love attack I know it went out but it's back. It's just like any fad it retracts before impact And just like fashion it's a passion for the with it and hip If you got the goods they'll come and buy it just to stay in the clique
[Chorus:] So don't delay act now supplies are running out Allow if you're still alive six to eight years to arrive And if you follow there may be a tomorrow But if the offer is shun you might as well be walkin' on the sun
Twenty-five years ago they spoke out and they broke out Of recession and oppression and together they toked And they folked out with guitars around a bonfire Just singin' and clappin' man what the hell happened Then some were spellbound some were hellbound Some they fell down and some got back up and Fought back 'gainst the melt down And their kids were hippie chicks all hypocrites Because fashion is smashin' the true meaning of it
[Repeat Chorus]
It ain't no joke when a mama's handkerchief is soaked With her tears because her baby's life has been revoked The bond is broke up so choke up and focus on the close up Mr. Wizard can't perform no godlike hocus-pocus So don't sit back kick back and watch the world get bushwhacked News at 10:00 your neighborhood is under attack Put away the crack before the crack puts you away You need to be there when your baby's old enough to relate
Welcome to Pax Plena! Here you'll find many a book review and many a musing about life. All courtesy of a recovering law student & burgeoning academic.
I'm also a Republican, a Christian, and a Native American - make of it what you will.
The Conservative Blog Network
