blepo

More on Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and geometry

2008-01-23T19:32:00.001-06:00

I have no reason to believe my earlier post inspired this GetReligion item, but I applaud it none the less and am glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the over (and inappropriate) use of the word "fundamentalism."

Explanation Problems

2008-01-23T19:00:00.000-06:00

(Bear with me on the limited 'tech' lingo to follow... I promise it won't last long.)

More from the brain-trust known as CommonCraft.com:

Discovering the RSS Explanation Problem

"I... had an AHA! moment. It was clear to me that RSS had an explanation problem that was preventing it from being adopted...

Since then I've been thinking a lot about explanation problems I'm starting to define them and the problems they cause. Ultimately, I think it's about adoption - adoption of an idea, a product or service. Good explanations increase adoption and poor explanations limit adoption. Here's how I'd explain it in Plain English..."

(He goes on to illustrate, quite literally, this "explanation problem", once again showcasing the simple genius of CommonCraft.)

Now, I highlight this at blepo not to discuss technology at large or the finer details of RSS or anything of the sort. What Lee LeFever (at CommonCraft) has discovered is a profound lesson in communicating... both corporately and personally:

"...the question was asked by someone curious about [fill-in-the-blank] and the answer, while correct, didn't matter to the asker. An interesting way to look at this situation is by considering how questions are asked. Often, when someone asks "what is...", they really mean "Why does it matter to me?" By considering what matters to someone, the answer becomes different and more likely to give them information they can act on."

So, to what aspects of our daily, interpersonal communication might we apply this lesson? Just few of my initial thoughts:

delegation of work tasks
requests of (and from) our spouses
explanation of beliefs: ...faith? ...political?
education

We could spend a lot of energy and time "shouting from the roof tops" what we believe and why we believe it (presuming we're at that point in the first place), but perhaps the next step is understanding why those beliefs will matter to our audience, not just because we think "well, they should!"

I can't help but think this would go a long way to deliver a message in a way that our audience will truly hear.

(Then again, educators among us may read this and think, "well, duh! I coulda told you that!")

mh

Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and geometry

2008-01-16T11:37:00.000-06:00

(or "Evangelical" doth not equal "fundmentalist")

I'm wondering if anyone else is as annoyed as I am about the use of the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalists" as synonyms by journalists. I've even seen it done by folks I think would know better including Carl Cameron (Fox News) and Juan Williams (Fox, NPR), particularly back during the Iowa caucuses.

I'm not a theologian, but I know a few and it seems to me that evangelicals CAN be fundamentalists and vice versa, but they do not necessarily mean the same thing. Granted, there are similarities and overlap in beliefs, but there are plenty of evangelicals who are not fundamentalists. I'm hoping most E's and F's would agree with me, but I'm open to being corrected.

It's always more complicated, but using the terms interchangeably, it seems to me, is the equivalent of using the words "square" and "rectangle". Yes, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square. (Thank you Sesame Street, circa early 80's.)

Then again, perhaps I'm to close to the whole thing and "hypersensitive" to the terms sense "I are one" (evangelical). Regardless, if journalists had accurate working definitions of the two words, I have to think it would positively impact their understanding (and thus reporting) on American religion.

mh

I'm hoping the good folks at GetReligion.org might chime in on this at some point with their stellar media critique. (Unless they have already and I've missed a past post, which is entirely possible.)

2007 Lessons learned

2008-01-03T20:00:00.000-06:00

The folks at Commoncraft wax eloquent about 15 lessons they learned in 2007.

Themes of brevity, authenticity, "hedgehog concepts" and balance abound.

Some of my favs ...

Simple is better. Approach an explanation by removing information instead of adding it.

Production values and ideas are often at odds. Flashy graphics and cool music are sometimes a poor replacement for a good idea. Spend time focusing on the message.

It's not always about how it works - it's about why anyone should care.

Give it away. Find something you love to do and give it away. If people love it, it may become your business.

Lifestyle is what matters. If you're independent, remember why. Look closely at how your business impacts your life. Step back and remember that you have a choice in how you live. You don't have to do it all.

It's worth a read and a bookmark.

mh

How to learn about something you know nothing about

2008-01-02T20:14:00.000-06:00

I ran across this nugget at David Frum's Diary on National Review:

When I was in law school, I devised my own idiosyncratic solution to the problem of studying a topic I knew nothing about. I'd wander into the library stacks, head to the relevant section, and pluck a book at random.

I'd flip to the footnotes, and write down the books that seemed to occur most often. Then I'd pull them off the shelves, read their footnotes, and look at those books. It usually took only 2 or 3 rounds of this exercise before I had a pretty fair idea of who were the leading authorities in the field.

After reading 3 or 4 of those books, I usually had at least enough orientation in the subject to understand what the main questions at issue were - and to seek my own answers, always provisional, always subject to new understanding, always requiring new reading and new thinking.

Thanks to David Frum for this brilliant strategy. In an information age, it's crucial to know where and how to get the best information. In a culture where time is a commodity, it is absolutely essential to get the best information quickly.

As a radio producer who (daily) receives both solicited and unsolicited books to review, it's extremely helpful to know who the 'authorities' are in any given field. (On that note, it also helps to know who the...well..."non-authorities", are.)

Book endorsements make a statement to people to need to make a fast decision about whether to go beyond the dust jacket, but not necessarily like you may think. The "big" names don't so much impress. The right mix of "big names" might, but if they're only "character endorsements" (that means they didn't actually comment on the book), I just yawn and move on.

Also, if the mix of character endorsements is extremely "homogeneous", I'm likely uninterested. In other words, if the list of book endorsements is clearly aimed at a very niche market (read: preaching to the choir), particularly in the worlds of religions and politics, I find they likely don't have much to offer listeners.

If, however, the mix of endorsements include "big names" or other authorities who don't normally agree with each other, it is that book which perks my interest.

(By the way, if you haven't read Frum's book about George W. Bush, it's worth a read.)

mh

Communists Endorse Religion?

2007-02-05T19:08:00.000-06:00

More evidence secularists don't have a clue: Religion just keeps going, and going, and going...

The Economist has a tremendous article about religion in China this week... When opium can be benign

Fascinating. Basically, even Chinese Communist Party officials (aka generations of atheists) are recognizing the positive role religion plays in society. :-) Sam Harris must be rolling over in his... ah gee...

Memorable quotes from the Economist article…

"…the party's Central Committee issued a document on how to build a harmonious society, arguing that religion could play a "positive role".

"The parlous state of China's health-care system has also given a powerful boost to religion."

"Parlous"… gee, I thought atheistic, socialist bureaucracies were the way to go. France? Germany? Oh, that's right, it's failing everywhere. Why anyone in the US wants government run health care is beyond reason. Moving on...

"…the local government appears content to let Catholics run the hospital, which is a key public service."

"…the head of the State Administration of Religious Affairs [of the Communist Party] … said the religious groups had helped reinforce social stability in [Hong Kong] with their contributions to public services."

"If the party is still trying to keep its members atheist, it is fighting a losing battle."

Ouch. That last one's gotta hurt!

So much for religion dying at the hands of modernity. If Marx called religion "the opium of the people", I call it the "Energizer bunny of anthropology.

AUDIO: Bioethics and the Church

2007-02-02T08:00:00.000-06:00

This recording was done a while back, but Ken Myers has a very insightful 'CD bonus track' with Nigel Cameron on the state of bioethics in the church. (Scroll to the bottom of the page to Volume 51.)

It's a curious thing that I listened to this prior to watching the Primetime episode I commented on Wednesday. I suppose it's this audio that 'primed the pump' for that thinking.

It's a free MP3 download and one you'll want to listen to.

(You'll notice that Cameron is also featured on Vol 82, which is also a good good listen, but for the sake of this post, we'll listen to Vol 51.)

mh

Pro-life Reporting from ABC News?

2007-02-01T00:33:00.000-06:00

Bravo to ABC News (Primetime). Whether they realize it or not, they aired what resulted in a largely 'pro-life' report last night.

Primetime ran two reports, 'Locked-In': Stuck In a Body That's a Prison and Medical Mystery: Hands Like a Lobster's Claws on their Wednesday January 31, 2007 program. I highly recommend both.

I label this program 'pro-life' not because it's about abortion (because it's not) and not because the term 'pro-life' is ever used (because it's not). Rather, I label this program 'pro-life' because the subjects ofPrimetime's reports have each faced very difficult life, death, and 'quality of life' issues and they all made what many of us would consider 'pro-life' decisions.

(HINT: Now would be an ideal time for you to watch the clips or read the articles if you haven't already.)

Now, did these brave folks wax eloquent about the value of life? Nope. Did they explain how their faith (Christian or otherwise) informed or strengthened their actions? Nope. (At least, not that made it past the cutting room floor.) Did they debate their critics on the finer points of bioethics? I doubt it. I have to say that they seem to have acted simply by instinct.

Also interesting is the tone and approach of Primetime's correspondents. Perhaps it's a standard 'journalistic detachment' but they couldn't seem to understand why parents would knowingly give birth to children who were known to have a disfiguring genetic defect (Ectrodactyly). They didn't seem to understand how a life could be so treasured even if that life's ability to communicate and move is severely prevented. Of course, the question follows: Do I understand?

Honestly? Probably not. At the cognitive level? Sure. I get it. I've been exposed to just enough layman's bioethics that I get the head stuff. But at the heart level? Nah. Look... Ralph Nader has been closer to winning a presidential election than I (or most of us) have been to really acting on this kind of practical, Judeo-Christian bioethic. After all, I'm 29, newly married and (to my knowledge) generally healthy. Invincible, right? ...

Side bar...

Just last week, the husband of a colleague was playing his usual pick-up soccer game. He and a teammate accidentally knocked heads during play. Bumps and bruises go with the sport, so he drove himself home, no sweat. Only there were problems. Moments after returning home, his wife was dialing 911. The remainder of that night included an ambulance ride, a CT scan, and 'minor' brain surgery immediately following. By the way, they've been married less than a year.

For now though, he's at home, fast recovering. He'll be out of work for a couple weeks, but generally on the mend and, by all accounts, he will fully recover. My point? (Hmmm, I think I had one around here somewhere...)

My point could be that I take for granted the basic motor skills these guests on Primetime struggle with daily. My point could be that life is precious, short and unpredictable. My point could be any of those and more, a fill-in-the-blank moral-of-the-story, if you will. But here's where I intended to go with this...

Do we, as 'the church', operate naturally from this kind of Judeo-Christian ethic, as demonstrated by the people on last night's Primetime? Do we, as 'the church', make these decisions by default? (According to Richard Land, perhaps not.)

My question: How do we move the church, as a whole, from the precipice of conflicted hand-wringing to a stance of assuredness on these bioethics issues? Perhaps it's back to the basics. Like a professional ball player drilling fundamentals, we as the church must reach the point where our performance is automatic.

After all, free throws win games, don't they?

We Grew a China

2006-10-18T23:24:00.000-05:00

I love it… the US economy has essentially 'grown a China' in the past 5 years.

This observation from historian Paul Johnson writing for Forbes...

Entire article is enlightening, but at least check out paragraph 8, Sentence 2-3.

Enjoy.

mh

Fun with Real Numbers

2006-04-12T16:08:00.000-05:00

A conversation/debate that sparked last night about 'the rich' reminded me of couple enlightening articles I'd read over the last few months...

1) Wall Street Journal, Feb 3, 2006 - "Tastes Great, More Filling"

The conventional wisdom of the popular media tells us that if we cut tax rates, less taxes are paid into the system. Sound right? [Insert buzzer sound here] Wrongo! As this Wall Street report shows (handy little graph included), the opposite is true. From paragraph 4:

In short, the lower rate yielded more revenue.

2) Townhall.com, Dec 6, 2005 - "Who pays the taxes"

A lot of this one is opinion which you can take or leave, but the facts in the first paragraph speak for themselves…

A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. They show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent...

...Of course, it would be a mistake to conclude that tax increases will not raise the wealthy's tax share or that tax rate cuts always will. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers almost doubled during a time when the top income tax rate fell by half.

So... raising taxes on 'the rich' actually seems to decrease the tax revenue generated by them. Decreasing taxes paid by 'the rich' increases tax revenue generated by them. Hm. Based on these numbers and trends, the argument could be made that if the gov't wanted to get the "most" money out of "the rich," then it would be fiscally responsible continue to decrease the tax rates of "the rich."

Why is this so? I think the principle is clear and it reminds me of my friend Phil's 'pain v. pleasure' principle of human behavior. Taxing (while necessary) can be a dis-incentive to hard work and success. The less of my earned money I get to keep, the less hard I will work to increase that earned money.

However, tax cuts are an incentive to people of all income levels because we keep a larger portion of what we earn. When we keep a larger portion of what we earn we 'do more' with our money. We spend more, save more, invest more, and start new businesses. All of that additional activity is also taxed, thereby increasing tax revenue.

These principles are so simple and so steeped in history that it boggles the mind why anyone still argues to "tax the rich!" Anyone who make this argument falls into one of 2 categories: 1) they mean well but are uninformed of the facts or 2) they know the facts but have motives other than increasing tax revenue or helping the poor.

mh

Put Your Money Where Your Fat Is

2006-03-08T14:54:00.000-06:00

I was pleased to see this article 'Lipids Like Sugar' in Smart Money mag by Mark Glassman about companies investing in adult stem cell treatments.

I want to affirm this article yet I think one interesting fact is missing, one which Smart Money readers may be interested to know. To my knowledge, and please check me on this, there are currently zero actual treatments available from embryonic stem cell research. Yet, as of July 2005, there were at least 65 actual treatments derived from adult stem cells.

I find this fascinating and, possibly, one reason the companies mentioned are pursuing ASCs instead of ESCs. To date, ASCs have proven the most productive kind of stem cells in treatments. All that plus no ethical restraints. Sounds like 'smart money' to me.

See StemCellResearch.org and Michael Fumento

mh

One Space, Two Space, Your Space, MySpace

2006-02-27T11:03:00.000-06:00

Extensive 'MySpace' article today by Wired mag...

My 2 cents worth…

'Grain of salt' Alert: Wired is a solid tech mag (I subscribe) but on issues of morality and ethics it can readily lean liberal/progressive and sometimes libertarian. Keep that in mind when reading this article. That said, I still think this articles is helpful.

Connectin' the dots…

1) Kids desire relationships (connectedness)

- Josh McDowell's Disconnected Generation
- Hardwired to Connect - Inst. for American Values, 2003
- George Barna's Real Teens

2) They will naturally seek this connectness anywhere they may find it, including online venues. Especially true if that need is not being met in 'real life'. MySpace and the like are essentially messengers and chat rooms (think the '90's) on steroids, equipped with just about every current Internet feature available. (blogs, photos, audio, video, profiles, etc.)

3) Parents MUST develop a working knowledge of current technology and trends (Internet in this case) if they hope to have a clue about their kids' relationships, online or otherwise.

Obviously this is not easy but the 'driving lesson' metaphor works well: What parent would give car keys to their child without first sitting in the passenger seat with them and give them ongoing instruction? Driving is not bad but there are inherent dangers. The same applies to the Internet. Why would a parent allow kids to surf the web, largely unsupervised, especially when the parent doesn't frequent the web?

mh

Wolf in a sheep's 'rapper'?

2006-02-07T17:24:00.000-06:00

Parents,

Please. PAY ATTENTION.

Russell Moore guest hosted Al Mohler's radio broadcast yesterday, the subject of which was 'Rap Music and Violence Against Women.' Dr. Moore welcomed guest Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic Monthly who wrote an article in the Jan/Feb '06 edition titled "Are You There God? It's Me, Monica: How nice girls got so casual about oral sex." Caitlin's article had touched on the subject of hip-hop/rap and it's misogynist view of women. Easy case to make, just visit the HipHop/Rap Music Store page in iTunes and listen to the previews.

Fine, we're all in agreement. Well, almost...

First let me say that I was impressed by Caitlin as a media guest and as a cultural observer. I do think she's has a logical blindspot. Allow me to explain...

Moore explained on air that his producers had sought to use some rap music as bumper music for the radio broadcast to set the stage for the conversation. They soon learned that simply downloading the even the 'clean' versions of these songs proved inappropriate for Christian talk radio. LESSON FOR PARENTS: The 'Clean' version simply means no expletives. The very graphic nature of the songs remain in tact. (If you doubt, just download the 'Clean' version of "Candy Shop" by Fifty Cent.)

Moore did play Kanye West's Gold Digger for which Caitlin affirmed him because Kanye brings a "complexity" to the genre. Complexity? I believe another word for complexity is 'confusion.' Caitlin, who has a solid grasp on the effect this genre has on the culture, complimented Kanye's music and referenced him as a "committed Christian." She cited, as do many folks, the title of his song "Jesus Walks." This is where I believe Caitlin, an otherwise astute commentator, miss this landmine of pop culture influence.

Indeed, Kanye's "Jesus Walks" includes advice from his mother and the word 'Jesus' but it also includes 'sh**' a couple times and mentions a 'trunk full of coke.' But let's give that song a pass on the expletives for the sake of 'cultural realism' or some such nonsense. Let's look at Kanye's song "Two Words" featuring the Harlem Boys Choir... which includes f**k just 5 words prior to his use of 'Jesus' again. Other lyrics, which are evidently endorsed by the Harlem Boys Choir, include 'c**k', 'sh**', 'mother f***ers'. Let's not forget the references to ecstasy capsules and pimps.

Now please hear me. I really don't mean to beat up on Caitlin. As I stated, she sounds like an astute observer of culture and a thinker. We like thinkers here. I just think she would be wise to check out Kanye's lyrics herself instead of depending upon her circle of friends for this information. (Granted, I'm presuming she hasn't read these lyrics, but I don't think this conclusion is a stretch.)

This is simply an example of blind acceptance of anyone who drops the 'Jesus' name. I could very easily make the argument that Kanye's music is worse than the hardcore rap because it dulls our senses and slowly makes audible garbage palatable.

Caitlin, like many American Christians, refused to 'judge' another's faith. Hmm. Her bio says she's raising twins. I wonder if she'll allow them to listen to Kanye on their iPods... Certainly she won't 'judge' Kanye and her kids' choice of music by censoring it in her home... or will she?

mh

Additional reading... "Jesus Sells: The Real Reason for Kanye West's Rap" by Nathan Tabor

Media Becomes War Participant, Not Observer

2006-01-12T11:43:00.000-06:00

(I know, long delay for this post. What can I say, I enjoyed vacation!)

Assuming the recent Weekly Standard article by Stephen Hayes is accurate (aka, true), than it's official: the mainstream media has become a participant in the Iraq War, shedding the role of reporter/observer.

Not that this is news to anyone, but this is beyond the standard 'conservative talk-radio' criticism that we're all familiar with. Now Mr. Hayes' article ("Saddam's Terror Training Camps") is essentially about documents that seem to prove that Saddam was hosting terror camps in Iraq well before the US liberation, but there is a particular paragraph that lept off the page (or LCD monitor, to be more accurate) as I read:

The main worry, says DiRita [Pentagon spokesman], is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."

The main worry? MAIN? Is this true?

Is the Pentagon (aka, United States government) making intelligence decisions based on what the mainstream media might do? Good grief!

All claims of media bias (liberal v conservative, etc) aside, Does this bother anyone else? That our government, during a time of war, is making intelligence decisions based on how the media might (and probably) will distort it?! Does this scare anyone else? It certainly scares me.

Now this is assuming that Hayes' sources are correct, but if it's true, then the US government has hesitated to make critical decisions, that could be saving lives, because of potential distortion in the news media.

Does anyone deny the media has built this reputation on it's own?

Now I've never served in the armed forces, but I would like to think that the risk of these kind of intelligence decisions are considered in light of enemy action, and rules of engagement, etc, but NOT THE NEWS MEDIA!!!

(Please note the appropriate use of 'All Caps' which signifies a volume increase of the voice or yelling.)

In my mind, when a certain entity causes a participant of war to make decisions based on said entity's potential actions, that entity ceases to be simply an observer, but an active participant in that war. If my logic is wrong on this, please correct me.

The only question now: what is the goal of this now-active participant?

mh

P.S. Happy belated New Year.

Wartime Christmas

2005-12-24T18:14:00.000-06:00

If you can get your hands on a copy...

...of this weeks' Wall Street Journal's Weekend Journal, (subscription) there is a great story from a handful of our US soldiers and mothers of soldiers. While we watch media reports of 'the war on Christmas, these Americans report to us what they experience on Christmas day at war, in their own words.

Summary: these folks are the living definition of servanthood.

It's a full newspaper page with not one complaint.

Every American should be reading this.

A few excerpts...

Chief Warrant Officer 3 John Wuensche, Age: 36. A Blackhawk helicopter pilot with the Army, based at Camp Taji, north of Baghdad...

The best Christmas celebrations this year, though, will be for Jason, Toby, Saul and Shane. These guys were hit while flying a patient about a month ago. Jason, one of the pilots, was seriously wounded; he is already home doing fine. Toby and Shane should be home on leave. Saul will be here -- with this family -- for Christmas. Wherever they may be, our deployed family is still intact. Christmas doesn't get any better than that.

Capt. Noah Hanners, Age: 26. Commander of a 30-soldier platoon in Tal Afar, Iraq...

We'll probably conduct a raid or two in search of terrorists. Maybe I'll wear a Santa hat over my helmet on a patrol to make my family smile when they see the pictures and to let them know what I was doing on Christmas Day.

Diann Bellmont, 50, of Cold Spring, Minn., is the mother of Marine Cpl. Kurt Bellmont, stationed in Ramadi, Iraq...

Our son now is protecting us, when for 18 years we protected and helped make decisions for our son. Isn't it funny how life turns the tables? ... We know he is sad to be separated from family during the Christmas season. But we know he is proud to do his share for his country. We truly believe that our Lord God will protect and keep our son Kurt safe.

Mary Jo Vermilyeam, Age: 55. Living in Ironton, Ohio, and the mother of Marine Lance Cpl. James Hopper, stationed in Ramadi, Iraq.

I am scared every single minute of every single day, I grieve with the parents who have lost their children and, in saying all that, I am the proudest I have ever been of my son. What more can a mother be proud of when her son is fulfilling his dreams of helping others and protecting his country?

Send your holiday wishes to the troops.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

mh

('A Holiday in Wartime' by By GREG JAFFE, MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and YOCHI DREAZEN, December 23, 2005; Page W1)

Witnessing History

2005-12-16T17:02:00.000-06:00

Wasn't it nice, for 24 hours at least, to take a deep breath of fresh air? The wildy successful elections in Iraq seemed to mute the usual media harping of failure in Iraq and general talk of 'quagmire.' Haven't heard that in a while, hm.

Political and media commentary aside… WOW. Free elections in Iraq. Free elections in the Middle East… and it's not Israel. Wow. At risk of life… the Iraqi people chose liberty over fear. Record here means highest turn out ever in Iraq… and probably the US, at least in recent years.

Birth of a democracy. Wow. Let this set in, won't you? Yes, it's not over yet. Plenty of struggle and hardship to come. There will be more car bombs and homicide bombers that will kill more civilians and soldiers, both Iraqi and coalition. But this is a monumental achievement by any gauge. Let's step back, take a deep breath, and enjoy this moment, for it will be fleating.

Yesterday's election in Iraq was in event that is on par with the fall of the Iron Curtain, the defeats of Hitler, Stalin, and others. Our own Independence Day. It's dramatic turning point in history, period.

While there certainly is a LOOOOONG way to go before we can say there is 'peace in the Middle East,' it's certainly closer than ever before. Think about that: Peace in the Middle East. Sounds cliché, doesn't it? I know, I'm being naïve, aren't I? Well, am I?

I have to imagine that the fall of Saddam and the rise of a democratic Iraq is, for my generation (X), what the Cold War and the falling of the Iron Curtain was for our parent's generation. Until US soliers pulled Saddam out of that rat hole, it's all we knew. Just as the Boomers grew up hiding under their desks during air raid drills, I grew up overhearing NPR drivetime reports on Middle East peace negotiations, followed by an assassination, followed by another bomb killing civilians, followed by negotiations, followed by an assassination, followed by… well, you get the picture. It's what we knew.

Sure that stuff is still happening. But 5 years ago, did anyone imagine this election would happen in our lifetime? How about 10 years ago? 15? 20? Hah!

Say what you will about Bush, but he had a vision, pursued it, and it's bearing fruit. Most said it couldn't be done. I'm certainly not the first to make this connection, but Reagan did the same thing with the Soviet Union. Sure, it looked different. Reagan's solution didn't require going to active war, but it did include spending the heck out of the USSR on defense. The same people who are whining about the Iraq war are the same people who whined about Reagan's defense spending. The same people told Reagan it couldn't be done, just as they've told Bush that Iraq will be a failure. But he did it anyway, because it was the right thing to do.

Today's Wall Street Journal op-ed says it well when it says

"...the most eloquent rebuttal to American defeatists came from the millions of Iraqis who voted yesterday for a new parliament."

Reports are saying 11 million out of the 15 million registered. Wow.

WSJ goes on to say,

"We're increasingly confident that victory in Iraq is not only possible but likely. The biggest threat to winning now is in Washington, D.C. Let's hope that with their tremendous vote yesterday Iraqis delivered faint-hearted U.S. politicians the necessary dose of fortitude."

I hope so too. But I fear there are some in DC who are so addicted to their own power and ego that they will persue that power at the risk US failure. It's one thing to be concerned about failure and criticize policies you think are leading to failure, but to show excitement when things look bad for Americans? Shameless. But I digress.

I reject the notion that any people group of the world is incapable of choosing liberty and freedom if given the choice. History affirms this. Germany. Japan. Afghanistan. The list goes on. In every case, doubters from the elite said that these people were incapable of governing themselves freely. I heard a Senator say this exact thing on Fox News this week. These people will continue to be wrong.

Who was it who said, "It's morning in America!" Was it Reagan? Unsure. But it's morning in Iraq. And I, as an American, rejoice with the Iraqi people.

I Don't Want to be a Parrot!

2005-12-11T16:00:00.000-06:00

Do you remember the 'Puffy Shirt' episode on Seinfeld? Jerry unwittingly agrees to wear a shirt for a 'soft talking' friend... on the Tonight Show... before seeing the shirt. Once Jerry realizes how ugly the shirt is, Kramer attempts to console him, telling him he looks like a pirate. To which Jerry whines, "But I don't want to be a pirate!"

Pirate. Parrot. There's a connection... I promise... just wait for it...

I like to read. Some books here and there and a lot of online writers. I love it. I can't get enough. (Yes, I'm a geek.) A list of some of these are found to the right of this column under 'Stuff I Read.' These people are religious scholars, political commentators, columnists, preachers, and more: good, solid thinkers who speak with thoughtfulness and truth. I can recall a lot of what they say and some of it will likely show up here in my own writing.

But how much of Scripture do I read, retain, recall and apply?

Part 11 of Tommy Nelson's series on Ecclesiastes considers chapter 12:9-11. It's about the characteristics of the Teacher...

v9 In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. v10 The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly. (NASB)

So not only was the Teacher wise, but he also DID something with that knowledge (Biblical knowledge or wisdom in this case). Sure he passed it along to other people, that makes sense, considering that's kind of the definition of a teacher... but it goes on (v10) to say that he pondered, searched out, and arranged many Proverbs.

Active, not passive. Engaging, not observing. Hm.

(And here's the parrot thing:) Tommy made a memorable point about being a prophet (little 'p') not a parrot. Basically, a parrot: one who simply regurgitates information with not true knowledge of what it's saying. A prophet: one who knows but also does something with it... learns, questions, teaches, engages. Kind of convicting really.

Do I "bleed scripture" like Charles Spurgeon said? [Conviction setting in right about now...] Am I to the point where my thinking and actions are inseparable from that of Scripture? Is it 2nd nature to me? Hm.

If we don't fully engage Scripture and allow it to transform us, then we risk being nothing more than parrots: sure they're good for few good chuckles, but after a while, don't you just want to shoot the thing? (Apologies to PETA: that was hyperbole, I promise.)

So while Jerry Seinfeld doesn't want to be a pirate, I don't want to be a parrot.

mh

P.S. Hold me accountable folks and don't let me be a parrot! :-)

"A Day Which Shall Live in Infamy..."

2005-12-07T17:36:00.000-06:00

I grew up in Morgantown, West Virginia, home of the Mountaineers. The USS West Virginia was one of 21 ships damaged or sunk at Pearl Harbor. To this day, the mast of the USS 'Wee Vee' stands prominently on the campus of WVU. According to USSWestVirginia.org, the ship took hits from 7 aircraft torpedoes before resting at the bottom of the harbor. Another testimony to 'The Greatest Generation's' inginuity, the USS West Virginia was relocated to the Puget Sound Naval Yard in Washington state and completely rebuilt.

Today marks the 64th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take advantage of any opportunity you have to express your gratitude and appreciation to our American soldiers, either currenty serving or veterans. It is wise for us to remember these significant moments in history and the sacrifices previous (and current) generations have made for the idea that is America.

mh

Hollywood's Religion

2005-12-05T17:06:00.001-06:00

A friend asked me about...
Upcoming TV from NBC includes "The Book of Daniel." I haven't seen previews or the show, so I'm commenting based on 2 articles I've read...

Check out the Beliefnet write up.
or Wall Street.

Typical Hollywood: thinks appealing to 'religious folk' means simply adding a priest to the plot and crosses to the set. By the summary of the main character's family, doesn't sound like this priest has a life, much less does he have it 'more abundantly.'

There of course will be Christians who will be up in arms about this being sacreligious, etc. And their concerns will be legitimate. Ultimately, Christian viewers will vote the same way other Americans do... with their remote. I give more credit to Christians spotting fraudulant representations of the faith.

It's TV by polling, which makes for lame TV... and presidencies for that matter. I won't be setting my TiVo. ;-)

mh