Perspectives

or, another reason why living in Austin is appropriate

Morgan and I are taking the 15 week Perspectives course.

Steve Hawthorne, the author of the Perspectives curriculum, study guide and the editor of the text book anthology was the speaker tonight. I can't recall three hours better spent. At the start, I thought he had some sort of hyperthyroidic condition, something was very familiar about his manner. We kept up, though, and it was awesome.

What was most excellent was the way he dropped references, "this is sort of the prequel to life...sort of how we needed a prequel to answer the question 'How did my father get to be such an evil dude?' we had to have the prequel sort it out" or "this isn't like trogdor burning houses here"

What is most appropriate is that Steve Hawthorne, rockstar that he is, lives in Austin and is a teaching elder at Hope Chapel here in town. They haven't posted his talk tonight--I just got home from it--but they do have some of his sermons from Hope Chapel that I'm sure are excellent. You can find those sermons here.

Wal-Mart & Healthcare
Another view of what happened in Maryland.

The "Determination Quotient".

Marvin Olansky in a recent issue of World Magazine writes of the importance of one's DQ - the Determination Quotient. He particularly relates this quality of character to the craft of writing. I thought these quotes were right on:

Michael Crichton: "Books aren't written. They are rewritten."

James Michener: "I'm not a very good writer, but an excellent rewriter."

In my law practice, good writing is of crucial importance. I will sometimes spend hours at the computer on a letter, trying to explain how some arcane idea applies to the special situation of my lay client. So many aspects of the practice work against this: the pressure of the "billable hour" regime that infects the profession; the demand of our clients for a quick turn-around on the solution, as if their problems were not years in the making; and our own desire to move onto the next thing, particularly if the matter at hand is less interesting than the next thing on the task list. So, sometimes, I will not spend hours on a letter, to the detriment of the service I extend, but will send an email or dictate a short letter. I liken this to the circus performer who has a bunch of plates spinning at the end of long sticks. His mission is to run around and keep them spinning so they won't fall off. His mission takes him nowhere except, sometimes, to a hilarious disaster as the plates all go crashing down. Nothing is accomplished with this approach; a great deal of risk is assumed.

It is not a great step to make rewriting prose and poetry a metaphor for dealing with relationships. (The law practice, of course, is all about relationships.) The difference is that we never complete the rewiting task with respect to our relationships, especially those we describe as loving. We must keep at each loved one's story, as a writer with his paragraph, the difference being that we do not complete the story of that relationship until one of us is gone. No one, then, is taken for granted. No one is fully known. So we keep at it, and there is great reward and pleasure in that and life is worth living.

Blah blah blah holiness,
yesterday Kellsey and I went to the shooting range!

We went with Dad (Paul) and Mr. Dewhurst. Between Dad, Mr. Dewhurst, and renting, we got to shoot all these pistols: Glock 22 (.40 cal), Glock 26 (9mm, aka the "Baby Glock"), Colt 1911 (.45 cal, not a replica, an actual WWII service pistol), Walther PPK (.38 cal, James Bond's gun!), Ruger 6 shooter (.357 magnum, a cowboy gun!), and Smith & Wesson M-642 (.38 Special).

It was even more fun than I thought it would be, and Kellsey was a really good shot! Generally, when Kellsey was shooting, Dad, Mr. Dewhurst and I would all gather behind her and watch. At one point, after she drilled the bull's eye repeatedly, Mr. Dewhurst turned to me and said, "Maybe you want to re-think this."

This morning teeth brushing was more difficult, as my right hand, shoulder, pectoral and lat were all sore. Now, this was before my first cup of coffee, so it took me almost the entire teeth brushing time to figure out the reason for the aches.

Holiness & Piety
Alex posted his agreement with a book he's reading, the thesis of which is: "What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?" Actually, he agreed with the thesis on the condition that it not be limited to marriage, but expanded to "What if God designed X to make us holy more than to make us happy?"

I agreed with Alex, on the condition that we agree that "holiness" means more than "piety." He asked me to explain what I meant by this. So here we are.

First, though, it's important to state that some words are more useful than others. That is, we can use the word "polygon" to describe every basic shape, but it's so much more helpful to say, "square," when trying to differentiate between a square and a triangle. While we pedants might work too hard at this, the joy of language is to find better and better words to communicate with each other. And the joy of theology is finding better and better ways of thinking and talking about God and his work in us. So while we could very easily sit on the "polygon" of theology, "Jesus is Lord," we work to find better and better ways of talking about that. We find ways to talk about where he is Lord, how he is Lord, when he is Lord, those over whom he is Lord, etc.

So now that I've justified the hair I'm about to split . . .

I think that Piety is an action oriented word. (Marshall beat me to the punch here.) Pious actions are a part of a Holy life, but not the sum of a Holy life. I'm also going to agree with Marshall that our Holiness is ultimately, fundamentally, and in the most real way found only in Jesus Christ. When we are in Christ, we are Holy. Our ongoing life, then, is one of living in the reality that we are now "in Christ." So we are pious, and do right action, because we are in Christ, and he does right action.

My concern that Piety <> (does not equal) Holiness will be evident when we substitute my definition of piety into the thesis of the book: "What if God designed X to make us [do right actions] more than to make us happy?" Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees clearly indicate that he was not nearly as concerned as them about doing the right actions. The Pharisees were always trying to trick Jesus into doing the wrong action: give money to Caesar, heal on the Sabbath (whoops! did that one!), eat with Sinners (whoops! did that one too!).

But I do think that "God designed X to make us holy more than to make us happy," if by that we mean, "God designed X to make us [open our eyes to the reality of our need for and life in Christ] more than to make us happy."

There is another tricky thing in this statement that doesn't have to do with Piety & Holiness, but is related to this talk of happiness. There is a sense in which God is interested in our happiness, which is captured in the Biblical language of Joy in the Lord. I think that what we're really talking about when we start saying, "God isn't interested in your happiness," is that, "God isn't interested in your Short Term Happiness if it's going to get in the way of your growth in the Lord Jesus, which will bring you Everlasting Joy (which includes happiness)." Frankly, I think that the Lord is quite fine with, and even gladly blesses us with Short Term Happiness so long as it isn't going to get in the way of our growth in the Lord Jesus.

It's unfortunate when we say things like "God isn't interested in your happiness," (which is true in a limited sense) because for those who don't know about those limitations, this God doesn't sound like someone they would like to know.

Speaking of Joy, well entrenched Stokes Kith, Marshall Benbow, entered the blogosphere with Joy In The Margins. He blogs about his life of college & urban ministry, as well as UNC Basketball (how 'bout them 'Canes?), and other things. Fair warning: I suspect that NASCAR will come up at some point over there. A link to this esteemed blog can be found in the KithRoll in the sidebar.

UPDATE: Kellsey pointed out to me, verbally here in the non-virtual world (imagine that!), that "holiness" has an actual definition: "set apart." (I knew that!) And this is not exactly the same as my "open our eyes to the reality of our need for and life in Christ." She's right, of course. But there is connective tissue between these two things. It is this: we are "set apart" because we are "in Christ." We share in Christ's holiness, because of this in-ness. For this reason, I think that it's fair to talk about "holiness" as "being alive in Christ," because by being alive in Christ we share in his holiness. But I really didn't say that in the post, so there it is. This is a problem I have: I'm working through an argument and skip salient points because they're so firmly embedded in my head that I don't even notice that they're a key dot in my connect-the-dots exercise. Kellsey is good at graciously helping me see that I've skipped those dots.

Usually, I don't do this
but I'm at school, no students, should be grading papers, and will happily do anything to put that task off...

So, here we are with Seven Things . . .

I want to do before I die:
-Go to Africa.
-Be fluent in at least one more language.
-Read Cien Anos de Soledad in Spanish.
-Run a marathon.
-Fall in love.
-Have some babies.
-See Aidan grow to love the Lord Jesus. (thanks, Macon)

Things I cannot do:
-Fall asleep at night after just 1 beer.
-Keep Ricco and Lamard from disrupting my 5th period.
-Get to Miami this weekend.
-Get a certain KB to ask me out.
-Figure out what to do next year.
-Get over what a great family I have.
-Stop drinking coffee in the morning.

Things that attract me to the opposite sex:
-Intelligence.
-A passion for the Lord.
-Deep and funny conversation.
-Soccer playing.
-Great friends.
-Exciting plans for the future.
-Something cool that sets them apart from the crowd.

Things I say most often:
-yo
-sort of
-beets
-please be quiet
-hey you guys
-like
-so

Celebrity Crushes Anti-Crushes:
(no, thanks; that's all I'll do)

Usually, I don't do this
but I'm on vacation and am wont to do things I don't normally do.

And Ann's a good friend from back in my days of being a 2100 Productions Intern.
And she called me out in her post.
And she linked K&K in her blogroll.

So, here we are with Seven Things . . .

I want to do before I die:

Learn to read Greek (classical & the other one).

Be fluent in Spanish.

Be conversant in French. (Fluency would be nice, but I've only got one life here.)

Read all of Church Dogmatics, by Karl Barth. (He hasn't been mentioned here in a while, so it's good to drop his name again.)

Read all of the Great Books. (As many as I can in the original languages.)

Achieve and maintain a second degree rank in Okinawan Goju-Ryu, a first degree in a Jijutsu style, and be conversant in a style of KungFu (perhaps White Crane, the predecessor of Goju).

See Aidan grow to love the Lord Jesus.

Things I cannot do:

Keep my mouth shut after Midnight + 1 beer.

Understand the attraction of shows like "Dancing with the Stars!"

Make Aidan sleep past 6am, even if I move him to an earlier time zone, where he really ought to have slept past 6am!

Stop the thought that pops up periodically: "What if the Catholic Church, for all its mess, really is the one true church?" (flame away!)

Convince the main women in my life (Kellsey, Mary, Carol) that I really should have and drive a motorcycle.

Keep up with Walter when it comes to sheer tenacity.

Stop my love for Miami and North Carorlina, regardless of where we live.

Things that attract me to the opposite sex:

Well, there is a certain je ne sais pas about them. (See, I'm well on my way! I can also use the terms, croissant, and triage at will.)

Mysterious not-qute-brown, but not-quite-hazel, with green, grey, & blue flecked eyes.

Women whose coloration is categorized by CMB as "Deep Winter".

Video gamers.

A stubbornness to match my own.

Being tall.

Knowing that it's as important to me that you recognize the brilliance of my joke, even if you don't think it's funny. (In leiu of "brilliance," I'll also accept, "wittyness," &/or "creativity". "Quickness" will also do in a pinch)

Things I say most often:

"Interesting"

"Awesome"

"Heh"

"Heyyyyyyyy, Aaaiiiiidannnnn"

"Dude"

"That's so crazy, it just might work"

"If by that you mean . . ."

Celebrity Crushes Anti-Crushes:

Britanny Spears

Jessica Simpson

Jessica Simpson's Sister

Madonna

Hillary Clinton

Madeline Allbright

Ozzy Ozborne's Wife

People I want to do this:

Walter

Mary

Sean

Alex

Scott

Paul

Kellsey
(One always risks offending the non-listed in a list like this. Though, in this case, I fear that the offense comes when you are actually on this list.)

(NB: This list was accurate at the time posted. The list is subject to change without warning and probably will in the next five minutes. But five minutes later, I might change my mind again.)

William Sean McClintock pictures.
Born January 10, 2006
7 lbs. 2 oz.
19.5 inches

Go Ahead, Make My Day!

Win a great handgun.

Mazda Kabura: I want it!




Get the heck out of the way, girls!

More on CW Keys.

The response to my post on the Chinese People's Liberation Army CW key was so overwhelming, that I thought I would post this link to another realm of exotic hardware.

New CW Key!



The copy from the Morse Express website that completely and utterly sold me:

Variously known as the D-117, the K4, or just the "Chinese Army Key" these heavy duty straight keys were made for the Chinese Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA). The Chinese phrase "changshu dianxun qichai chang" translates as "Changshu Telecommunication Equipment Factory."

In 2000, Morse Express obtained remaining stocks which were purchased direct from the PLA as surplus. They are mostly in factory new condition, with some showing a bit of "warehouse wear" such as deteriorated packaging and dust. Supplies were limited, and apart from being a good heavy-duty straight key, they are also very collectable. See our Collectors' Corner page for some of the "varieties."

Late in 2003 we were able to get in touch with the factory, and were delighted to discover that the keys are still in production, and by going direct to the factory, we were able to get better prices. They are still expensive to ship from China, of course, but we are happy to pass the savings along to our customers.

The keys have chrome plating, machined needle bearings for the trunion, hard silver (K4) or copper (K5) contacts, and a felt pad on the base. They weigh around two and a quarter pounds each! Approximate base dimensions are 2-3/4 x 4-3/4 inches. They're 2-1/2 inches high and the center of the knob is forward of the base about an inch.

Of course the keys are "still in production", you silly American!

Hey Kids, What Time Is It??!!

Mary visited us for the holidays, reclaiming her room (alas, temporarily), which the rest of the world knows as radio station K4JSU.

She made some remarks about the number of clocks in the room.

I want everyone to know that my feelings are not hurt.

And besides, the number of clocks in that room is entirely normal.

Bad form, Wheaton!

Fr. Neuhaus will be very disappointed.

UPDATE: Macon pointed me to this post on the FT blog. Not only does this post have an intelligent discussion of the controversy, it also links to the complete WSJ article that initially got our attention over the weekend.

Good luck with that.
To Europe:

We wish you well in your faith that war has become obsolete and that outlaw nations will comply with international jurisprudence that was born and is nurtured in Europe. Yet your own intelligence suggests that the Iran theocracy is both acquiring nuclear weaponry and seeking to craft missile technology to put an Islamic bomb within reach of European cities — oblivious to the reasoned appeals of European Union diplomats, who themselves operate as Greek philosophers in the agora only on the condition that Americans will once more play the role of Roman legionaries in the shadows. . . .

You will, of course, answer that in your postwar wisdom you have transcended the internecine killing of the earlier 20th century when nationalism and militarism ruined your continent — and that you have lent your insight to the world at large that should follow your therapeutic creed rather than the tragic vision of the United States.

But the choices are not so starkly bipolar between either chauvinistic saber rattling or studied pacifism. There is a third way, the promise of muscular democratic government that does not apologize for 2,500 years of civilization and is willing to defend it from the enemies of liberalism, who would undo all that we wrought. . . .

The world is becoming a more dangerous place, despite your new protocols of childlessness, pacifism, socialism, and hedonism. Islamic radicalism, an ascendant Communist China, a growing new collectivism in Latin America, perhaps a neo-czarist Russia as well, in addition to the famine and savagery in Africa, all that and more threaten the promise of the West.

So criticize us for our sins; lend us your advice; impart to America the wealth of your greater experience — but as a partner and an equal in a war, not as an inferior or envious neutral on the sidelines. History is unforgiving. None of us receives exemption simply by reason of the fumes of past glory.

Either your economy will reform, your populace multiply, and your citizenry defend itself, or not. And if not, then Europe as we have known it will pass away — to the great joy of the Islamists but to the terrible sorrow of America.

From Victor Davis Hanson.

UPDATE: 5 minutes later, cause Stephen Green says it funnier. Read the whole thing here.
Also To Europe:

I know you think we're all religious nuts over here, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the real deal. We're trying, however imperfectly, to bring a little freedom to the Islamic world. Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map. How's that for nuts? He's not making any idle threat, either, like launching "a thousand-year Reich" or promising "liberty, equality, fraternity." Iran wants nukes. Iran has an advanced nuclear program. We'd like to stop them, without using military means.

And we'd sure like some help, fellas.

There's another Holocaust brewing, and I don't mean your parlor-room talk about how America is killing brown babies for oil. Besides, we aren't the ones who committed the first Holocaust – that was your doing. What we're trying to do is prevent another one, and we'd like to think that you guys might be a little sensitive to that sort of thing. "Go forth and sin no more," and all that.

Well, here's your chance to right a wrong.

Looking at your atrophied militaries, maybe that's too much to ask. So instead, how about if you could provide a little multinational moral support to the endeavor? Then again, we've all seen what counts as moral backbone in Brussels and Paris and Berlin – so let's set our sights a little lower. How about you guys just sit back and shut the hell up while the pros do what needs to be done?

You guys have failed. As of right now, Iran can produce yellowcake. As of shortly after right now, Iran will have nukes. As of yesterday – thanks in no small part to Old Europe – Iran already has missiles capable of reaching Israel.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some chickenhawk cowboy who wants to bomb the snuff out of Iran. I think there's still some slim chance that diplomacy might still work. But – and let's speak frankly here, as friends – your brand of diplomacy just won't cut it.

Your kind of diplomacy gave chemical weapons technology to Saddam Hussein. Your kind of diplomacy sells jet fighters and stealth-defeating radars to whoever has the cash to buy them. Your kind of diplomacy is the same kind of diplomacy you used to coddle a certain German tyrant 70 years ago.

Well. In the age of nukes, that kind of diplomacy just won't cut it.

We can muster "big stick" diplomacy, and Iran knows it. We have CENTCOM in Iraq. We have Special Forces in Afghanistan. We have Israel on a very loose leash.

Yours is the kind of diplomacy that pleads. Ours is the kind that threatens.

You've had your chance, and gotten nowhere. We'd like to see what we can do. All we ask is that you play to your strength and admit defeat already. We'll take it from here.

Microfinance.

On Thursday, the WSJ ran an article about "microfinance loans" and, specifically, about how one could invest in companies that help make those loans. The article has a table that lists some of these organizations. The table is reproduced on a blog called microcapital.org. The blog lists other organizations involved in microlending as well.

The body of the WSJ article also refers to organizations not listed in the table. The point of the article is that microlending is moving from the not-for-profit sector to the profit sector. (The WSJ website is a subscription site, as you probably know. My subscription allows me to email individual articles. Let me know if you would like me to email you a copy of the WSJ article. )

The blog I mentioned called the organizations that give you some return on your money or, at least, give you your principal back, as "ROI" organizations. "ROI" refers to "return on investment" or maybe "return of investment".

World Vision is one of several not-for-profits that have a microloan program. You simply make a contribution and they take it from there. Using World Vision for this sort of thing makes sense to me, because you have some assurance that the money will be used as promised. On the other hand, the presence of the blog I refer to above also gives one the opportunity to find out more about this innovative way to do good, whether its in the secular or Christian world.

[Footnote: I looked at the Calvert Foundation website, referred to in the WSJ article, where one can invest in "community investment notes" with a $1000 minimum. The site has a button that lists "our friends", meaning, I think, investors in their products. Among Calvert's friends is the "Gay Financial Network". That deflected my interest in this organization. Do you think it should?]

Nice Lines
First Things On The Square notes that Milton Himmelfarb passed away this week. I don't know who he is, but I really liked some of the things he said, according to FT:

“The trouble is not that religion in general has too small a role in American public life or American life simply,” he wrote in FIRST THINGS in March 1991. “The trouble is that a particular religion has too great a role—paganism, the de facto established religion.”

The powerful phrase “No Hitler, No Holocaust” began as the title of one of his classic essays in Commentary, and it was Milton Himmelfarb who first coined the phrase “argumentum ad Hitlerum” to describe the easy and false analogies that swirl around political debate.

Argumentum ad Hitlerum, the forerunner to Godwin's Law.

Trinogomous Hell.

The Miami Herald (where else?) considers three in the sack.

Sartre was all over this.

Note: I have modified this post. I really find the Herald article to be quite interesting. Its about a documentary and about the film maker - and about the subject of the documentary, the "trinogomous" relationship that went on for years and produced, apparently, at least one child, but finally broke up. Does the documentary necessarily invite emulation; does the newspaper article? If they invited emulation, then they are morally reprehensible. What we watch, what we read, what we listen to, where we spend our time, will tend to conform us to what we perceive. That's why we want to meditate on God's law, day and night. That's why we want not to walk in the way of the counsel of the wicked.

This kind of article makes the Herald's editorial policy so despicable. The Herald is in a unique and powerful position to build up, but it seems ever to tear down.

As to the demerits of the case presented in the article, is there a difference between "serial" polygomy and "trinogomy"? At least the former affirms the idea of one male/one female, while undercutting it with the temporal nature of the mariage/divorce/marriage cycle. "Trinogomy" simply ignores the natural state of things.

Daniel

Big date night last night. Our Publix rendevouz was particularly exciting because we are getting ready for Aidan's visit. And, as if that wasn't enough for late-yuppie style Friday night romance, we got home and channel surfed (if you can call what I do with a 17 inch tv with rabbit ears surfing) into the new NBC show Daniel. From what I understand from some of the Evangelical pundits, this show will push us over the edge into Armageddon and make a viewer go blind.

Its funny, though. It is a great satire on upper-middle/upper class American culture. The "Christianity" is spot-on liberal Protestantism. The prettiest actor plays Liberal American Protestant Jesus (hereinafter "LAP Jesus"), but nearly all of them are pretty, except for the characters of whom the writers disapprove.

The writers disapprove of Daniel's father, the bishop, but LAP Jesus, being LAP Jesus of course, says even the bishop is really a good guy. Of course, we know what LAP Jesus' problem is, my fellow Americans - he loves everybody, even Pharisees like the bishop. I don't exactly remember the Jesus of the New Testament (hereinafter "NT Jesus") loving the Pharisees. Maybe he loved them at some profound level, maybe like going to the cross for them (and me), but he certainly didn't like them. Would you call someone you liked a snake? But LAP Jesus likes everyone. I sort of like LAP Jesus, especially when he is as pretty as the one on Daniel, but I don't love him. In fact though he's a nice guy, he's sort of a, what's the word these days? a word of gentle contempt, something begins with a "w" or "wh", but I can't think of it. Anyway, he's one of those, this LAP Jesus. But good looks on a man or a woman go a long way - at least for however long that show went last night.

My favorite character was the RC priest. I've seen that actor before - playing Italian bad guys or Italian cops, usually ones that are just a little disturbed. He's just perfect for this part. If nothing else, he projects an aura of slightly malevolent strength. Frankly, the projection of strength by any male on this show, malevolent or not, is refreshing, because I saw it from none of the other male characters. (Speaking of male-strength-not, how about the father of the girl friend of Daniel's adopted, Asian son? Doesn't he sort of define TV American maleness?)

Every relationship in this show is "messed-up" and "abnormal" except, maybe, for Daniel's relationship with his wife and maybe his relationships with most of the other characters. Daniel, himself a priest, Episcopal variety, is the epitome of nice guy-ness, which is the character to which all of us should aspire, as the show teaches. That's obviously why LAP Jesus hangs around with him. (And why NT Jesus is nowhere in sight.)

The show sends-up all behaviors or "life-styles", but the writers make it plain of what they approve as they present the characters. The favorite character, other the Daniel, seems to be Daniel's gay son. This is the same same "gay" stereotype we see everwhere: gentle, sensitive, bright, reasonable, reasonably needy, reasonably giving, but, come to think of it, all the stereotypes are in this show. But its well put together, slick, and, when you crowd all those stereotypes in one fast moving TV show, it does offer even a NT Jesus follower a few moments of guilty pleasure.

Politics Summed Up
An interesting idea from the First Things blog:

Responsible political opinion runs only in a narrow range, from the liberal certainty that freedom is worth its risks to the conservative intuition that civilization is worth its costs. Everything beyond these boundaries is radical and irresponsible, in one way or another—usually in a denial that there actually are any risks to freedom or costs to civilization.

From a much longer post on abortion politics.

Can You Believe this Guy?

And at one time people seriously thought about him as President.

Choose to Save.

The WSJ reported Tuesday that in 2006 Americans spent more than they brought home, for the first time since the Depression. This is a little disturbing, but is this really news?

Anyway.

The article pointed to a website where you can estimate what you need to fund retirement. I don't think that a well funded "retirement" is the point of life, but saving for some imagined point in the future where you might want to do something that requires a little stored-up wealth is definintely a good thing.

P&P: near the end.

ELIZABETH'S spirits soon rising to playfulness again, she wanted Mr. Darcy to account for his having ever fallen in love with her. "How could you begin?'' said she. "I can comprehend your going on charmingly, when you had once made a beginning; but what could set you off in the first place?''

"I cannot fix on the hour, or the spot, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.''

"My beauty you had early withstood, and as for my manners -- my behaviour to you was at least always bordering on the uncivil, and I never spoke to you without rather wishing to give you pain than not. Now be sincere; did you admire me for my impertinence?''

"For the liveliness of your mind, I did.''

"You may as well call it impertinence at once. It was very little less. The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking, and looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused, and interested you, because I was so unlike them. Had you not been really amiable, you would have hated me for it; but in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your heart, you thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you. There -- I have saved you the trouble of accounting for it; and really, all things considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure, you knew no actual good of me -- but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love.''

I just love a happy ending.

"A Stream of Things of Value"

According to the WSJ today, the criminal information (used in lieu of an indictment of Jack Abramoff) refers to a Congressman whom Abramoff is alleged to have bribed. The information cited this person

as having been "provided a stream of things of value" in return for official favors. It said the things provided included campaign donations, a lavish golf trip to Scotland, tickets to sporting events and other entertainments, and regular meals at a pricey Washington restaurant called Signatures that Mr. Abramoff once owned.

The stream metaphor made me think of Psalm 1, where the righteous man, who meditates day and night on the law of the Lord, is "like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season . . . "

What a contrast. God's "stream of value" that nourishes us, that makes our lives fruitful, that keeps us fresh and new, and that prospers us. Abramoff's "stream of value": ill-gotten money, travel, "entertainments", and rich food, all of which leads to such black denouement. It reminds me of those sweets that the White Witch gave Edmond, bribing him into betrayal. God on the one side. Mammon on the other. There is absolutely nothing new here. So totally banal.

Pure. Cullinary. Genius.

For lunch today I was making myself a peanut butter (creamy, 'cause we were out of crunchy) sandwich, when I had this mental dialogue:
"I wish I had crunchy peanut butter."
"Mmmmmmmm, crunchy peanut butter."
"What else could I put in here that crunches?"
"How about . . . Goldfish Crackers?"
"Well, that would crunch, but what about the cheese flavor?"
"Good question. . .Wait! Lance makes those Toast-Chee crackers: Cheese flavor crackers & peanut butter in the middle!"
"Mmmmmmmmm, Toast-Chee crackers."
"Allright! Goldfish Crackers in my peanut butter sandwich!"

And sure enough, it was a great combination: Peanut Butter and Cheese flavor crackers. And bread.

Macon Stokes: I didn't invent the Peanut Butter and Cheese Flavor Cracker Combination, just the Peanut Butter and Cheese Flavor Cracker Sandwich.

Black Monday at the U.

Larry Coker guns down the heart of his staff. Including Art Kehoe, the very soul of the assistant coach universe at UM, he among the staff that lobbied for Coker to be elevated to head coach when Butch Davis left for Cleveland. Blow, blow, thou Winter Wind!

This whole town is stunned - but at least it takes our minds off the LSU game itself.

Somebody suggested on the main Sportstalk show today that Saban be hired to coach both the U and the Dolphins, we all figuring that Nick can walk on water anyways. Last week he beat New England directly and the 'Canes by proxy.

"God and Man at Davidson"

First Things roving, critical eye alights on DC. In the January 2006 issue, Terry Eastland, publisher of the Weekly Standard and a Davidson parent, describes the sad erosion of Davidson's Presbyterian connection to the point last February where the Board of Trustees revised the mission statement and amended the by-laws to permit non-Christian trustees. (We've addressed the board's action before on this blog.)

Next month, the article should be posted on the FT website, but if anyone wants a copy now, let me know.

In summary, Eastland writes:

It is elementary that colleges exist to educate students, and Davidson students committed to "the historical understanding of Christian faith called the Reformed Tradition" will fairly wonder whether the college is any place to look for instruction in Christian theology or, for that matter, Christian ethics. Not that the college fails to do many things well. It is in the highest rank academically, with many outstanding teachers. But students who confess the historic faith cannot be faulted for looking elsewhere for guidance on such fundamental matters. Indeed, the deepest lesson of the Davidson story is that the Church of Jesus Christ is not to be confused with a church-related college, that a church-related college can go its own way. The Davidson trustees did not intend to teach that, but it is the accurate lesson of the college's last all-Christian board.

On Pride and Prejudice.

I'm reading P&P for about the third time; I read it once in high school, again in college, and now again at the mature age of 25. This time around, I'm enjoying it immensely as always, and am paying closer attention to what makes it such a good book, and in particular, why it is that so many well educated and thoughtful women seem to love it :)

I'm almost 2/3 of the way through right now, and at the point, for those of you familiar with the story, whether through reading it or through the film versions, where Elizabeth has visited Pemberley for the first time with her Aunt and Uncle, and has run into Mr. Darcy. She has not seen Mr. Darcy since his failed proposal. Since that time, Elizabeth has learned many important things: 1, that she was wrong about his dealings with Mr. Wikham, and Mr. Darcy is not to blame in that regard; 2, that she really does have a pretty ridiculous family, and not just because they don't have so much money; 3, that he's got a really, really nice house and grounds; 4, that his housekeeper thinks he's the most wonderful man ever; 5, that upon this next meeting at his house, he treats her and her aunt and uncle with the utmost care and respect; and 6, perhaps most important, she has realized her own pride and prejudice that caused her to make too hasty a judgment on Darcy's character. (see the following dialogue, that is omitted in all film versions, but which captures Elizabeth's developing self-awareness quite well:

And yet I meant to be uncommonly clever in taking so decided a dislike to him, without any reason. It is such a spur to one's genius, such an opening for wit, to have a dislike of that kind. One may be continually abusive without saying anything just; but one cannot be always laughing at a man without now and then stumbling upon something witty.)

Back to the love story--I think the reason that it's so attractive to so many of us is because of the nature of Darcy's love. It's full of grace. At first, he certainly doesn't get it quite right, but the grace is still there; he makes clear how ridiculous it is that he love someone like Lizzie, with her family and connections as they are, and indeed, given the times it is a pretty ridiculous and perhaps unmerited confession of love. Of course, her pride and prejudice and his own pride that comes out in his proposal make it fail miserably.

However, the love continues, and upon their next meeting, Darcy has softened considerably; Elizabeth wonders how it could be possible that he could still love her, given her earlier rejection of his proposal:

She certainly did not hate him. No; hatred had vanished long ago, and she had almost as long been ashamed of ever feeling a dislike against him, that could be so called. The respect created by the conviction of his valuable qualities, though at first unwillingly admitted, had for some time ceased to be repugnant to her feeling; and it was now heightened into somewhat of a friendlier nature, by the testimony so highly in his favour, and bringing forward his disposition in so amiable a light, which yesterday had produced. But above all, above respect and esteem, there was a motive within her of good-will which could not be overlooked. It was gratitude; gratitude, not merely for having once loved her, but for loving her still well enough to forgive all the petulance and acrimony of her manner in rejecting him, and all the unjust accusations accompanying her rejection. He who, she had been persuaded, would avoid her as his greatest enemy, seemed, on this accidental meeting, most eager to preserve the acquaintance...Such a change in a man of so much pride excited not only astonishment but gratitude--for to love, ardent love, it must be attributed.

That's as far as I've gotten this time around, but those of you who know the story will know that this ardent love will perservere through a bit more before it's all done.

Two conclusions from all this:

1. I think we young women like this love story because despite of our initial screw-ups and misconceptions, the man keeps his cool and presses forward with his life and with a purpose, not necessarily directly towards the girl, but towards a greater purpose and end which will truly demonstrate his worth and nature and love.

2. As I've seen the grace that's involved in this love, I'm of course reminded of the much greater love offered by our dear heavenly father. There's some real pursual. And despite our initial rejection or our pride or our misconceptions, that love presses forwards with its greater purpose and toward a greater end. And when the scales finally fall from our eyes, we see the wonderful, true nature of God and Christ, and we can't help but accept the love he offers.

p.s. Mr. Darcy, if you're reading this, do let me know.

"[A] terrifying, totalitarian and in Britain wholly successful putsch against truth itself, the weapon of subversion of a moral, political and social order."

Melanie Phillips reviews Anthony Browne's book on political correctness in Britian, the book entitled "The Retreat of Reason."

The New Criterion.

Here's a publication that may be worth keeping an eye on. It describes itself as follows:

The New Criterion, founded in 1982 by the art critic Hilton Kramer and the pianist and music critic Samuel Lipman, is a monthly review of the arts and intellectual life. Written with great verve, clarity, and wit, The New Criterion has emerged as America’s foremost voice of critical dissent in the culture wars. A staunch defender of the values of high culture, The New Criterion is also an articulate scourge of artistic mediocrity and intellectual mendacity wherever they are found: in the universities, the art galleries, the media, the concert halls, the theater, and elsewhere. Published monthly from September through June, The New Criterion brings together a wide range of young and established critics whose common aim is to bring you the most incisive criticism being written today.

The recent article entitled It's the Demography, Stupid, would be a good piece to start.

IPod?

Carol is definitely the techie at our house (and at the office). Desperately looking for a creative birthday gift idea last summer, I gave her an iPod Mini. With help from children, she's moved a lot of her favorite songs over, and she carries it and listens to it on the train and elsewhere. For Christmas, Santa put a JBL portable speaker system in her stocking, and I, in setting it up for her iPod, got to know the iPod itself a lot better. I'm hooked.

So I need some advice. Should I get the Nano or the standard iPod? Should I move away from Apple and get some other kind of MP3 player? I think I will be listening not only to music, but also to commentary. (For example, Walter and Morgan gave me a set of CDs of lectures by Francis Schaeffer on "True Spirituality". [Super lectures.] If I had a small MP3 player, I would transfer the lectures to the machine. I also get issues of audio "magazines" in CD form, and I could transfer them to the MP3 player.)

What think ye?

Blogroll Additions!
I've added and updated our blogroll. As usual, Sean Meade takes pride of place. It was Sean who got this all started, and he's a most faithful commenter here. His blog, Interact, is aptly named.

Three new additions to our Kithroll:
Piebald Life - Alex Kirk is a good buddy of mine on InterVarsitiy Staff at UNC-Chapel Hill. He was part of the cohort that went through Gary Deddo's Systematic Theologies (I, II & III) with me. He just started his blog and I am sure it's going to be good reading.
Come and See - Willis & Amy Weber are on InterVarsity Staff at the College of Charleston. They post updates on their ministry as well as pictures of picturesque Charleston, SC.
Loud Time - Dave Zimmerman is an editor at IVP and has anofficial IVP blog. But Loud Time is his personal blog. He wrote a book about superheroes. I'm thinking he's going to have interesting and un-IVP-filtered things to say on his personal blog!

One addition to Commentary:
FT:On The Square - Did you know that Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has a blog? Yep. It's just like the On The Square comments he makes at the back of each issue of First Things. I highly recommend it.

Four additions to Iraq & GWOT:
After a year of talking about Iraq with folks who only had NPR & the MSM as inputs on Iraq, I thought it was high time to make it easier on them to get a more balanced, nuanced, and truthful take on what's happening out there in the big bad world. I highly recommend reading Michael Yon who's an embedded, independent reporter in Iraq.

New Web Page at Stokes McMillan.

We have been using West Publishing's web services for 6 years at our firm. Our new partner, Juan Antunez, took on the project of getting us updated, and with a different webdesigner and host. Juan had already been law-blogging for several months, and you can see that the new site is tied to his blog.

I deliberately kept away from this update process, but would be interested in your thoughts.

I'll make it easy. Take a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the best.

As to "professional look", how would you rate the old one and how would you rate the new one.? (If you don't remember the old one, just rate the new one. I don't think the old one was all that memorable.) We are looking to attract out of town law firms to use us as their local counsel.

As to "layman friendly", how would you rate the old one and how would you rate the new one? We are not trying to get every casual internet user to find us and call us. We are trying to present somthing that a lay person can go to, after he hears about us otherwise, and feel that its worth giving us a call after he checks our site. At least we don't want him put off by it.

And, of course, any other comments would be appreciated.

Statistically Speaking
since Aidan was born, I've seen 90% of all sunrises. Before Aidan was born, I was at about 0%.

I had this thought this morning as he and I were sitting at Sbux and the sun came up. It was a beautiful sunrise. But it kind of made me tired to think about all the sunrises I'd seen.

The Chronicles of Narnia.

Carol, Mary, and I saw this last night at Sunset Place. We enjoyed it. There were fascinating scenes, one of my favorites being the long shot of the beginning of the battle, where the army led by Peter charges the army of the White Witch. In that scene the faster elements of the good army run out ahead of the rest of the army as the charge takes place, as you might expect. Those elements are the cheetas, and it is quite exciting. There is such care and detail given that scene. To me there is a different feel to the battle than the ones in Lord of the Rings - not so much better or worse, just different and just as glorious.

The most surprising scene to me is the one with Father Christmas. (It has been so long since I read the book that I didn't remember that he was in it.) This kindly man pulls his big bag out of the sleigh, and what does he give to each child? Weapons!!! I thought we've been through all that with Santa Claus! We don't give such things in play-toy form to little children, much less the real thing. (At least weapons were also given to the little girls. In a left handed way, at least that was politically correct. Personally, I think when you are really serious about doing some killing, you most definitely arm the women as well as the men.) Putting all the sneaky Christ stuff aside, this idea of arming children to fight evil is really dangerous. I mean, do we really believe there is evil in the first place? Come on!

And the poor White Queen is not so much evil as simply a mess. Let's have the Mary Kay people get ahold of her and let's give her some gift certificates to Ann Taylor. (Where is Father Christmas for her?) She could use some counseling and a case of Sterno. She needs the company of beautiful people. Speaking for all vegetarians all over the world, what happens to her at the end is simply outrageous.

Thank goodness we have King Kong this season to suck away viewers. In that movie, what we thought is evil is good, and what we rely on to keep order, well that's bad. (Gee, I'm getting mixed up here. I think I'll go listen to NPR. They will restore a little reality.)

Mexico, Nuestro Amigo.

On the Editorial Page of the WSJ yesterday, Victor Davis Hanson writes a piece rebutting the accusation of "shameful" that Vicente Fox throws at the idea of the US building a wall along the border. I looked at OpinionJournal.com to see if one could read the article there, but not yet. WSJ.com is, of course, a subscription site. (If you would like me to email you a copy of the article, let me know at pstokes@smpalaw.com.)

But the column is definitely worth reading for what has been characterized as the "anti-immigrant" side of the argument. Hanson's thesis is that the largely uncontrolled immigration from Mexico does neither Mexico nor the US any good at all. It enables a repressive economy and political system in Mexico, it damages the economy in the US, and keeps the poor immigrant, who sends his money back home, poor. Hanson, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a Classics guru, has written a book-length critique of our permissive immigration policy in Mexicana: the State of Becoming. I haven't read it, but it looks worthwile.

Hanson has a blog that looks interesting.

McClintock Christmas 2005 pics

Tut Rules.

Monday afternoon, Mary, Carol, and I visited the King Tut exhibition in Ft. Lauderdale. This is a traveling exhibition that has made a stop in South Florida. It was a crowded scene. Although we had a ticket time, we waited in line for more than 30 minutes before our cohort of 100 plus people finally entered the museum. We made our way through a series of rooms that contained artifacts and information about Ancient Egypt, King Tut, and the discovery of his tomb in the 1920s. The tour was about 90 minutes.

When I emerged, I felt just a little underwhelmed and a bit disappointed. There seemed to be just too many people and not enough stuff. But I think I was, in fact, overwhelmed by what I saw and fatigued by the wait, dealing with crowds, looking at the artifacts, and reading the explanations and commentary. It was plainly not forgettable. I have been thinking about what I saw since Monday, pondering.

There are two overall impressions that I took from the experience. One was that these people, the ancient Egyptians, were a highly sophisticated people, with a complex culture, a people who had carved out a magnificent civilization in a relatively unlikely place, surrounded by enemies that they largely subdued. (Hardly anything new here, of course, but the impact that the exhibit made on me of this point and the next point was profound.)

The second impression was how religious the Egyptians were, how close to the supernatural they lived, how convinced they were of an "after-life". Again, nothing new here, but it seemed to me quite ironic that this exhibit is such a big deal (as it should be) in the present culture where our own elites largely deny the supernatural and an "after-life".

Then I wondered about what the impact the exhibit might have on the people who visited the exhibit. Would their view of the world be changed for the good? Does an exhibit like this challenge and instruct us? Or is it simply a sort of pretty toy that leaves us unaffected as we exit the museum?

A taste of Miami, for those of you who missed out this Christmas.

I get around.

The word is peripatetic.

Take that, Pagans!
I'm glad that we celebrate Christmas on Dec 25. It as a direct result of the early battles when Christians were asserting their Power in the Spirit over the ruling Pagan Powers. The Christians didn't just set up their shop next door to the Pagans, feebly saying, "Our God is more powerful than their god." They went in, razed the Pagans' shop, and set their own shop up right where theirs used to be. (David Hart wrote an article about this concept in First Things titled, "Christ and Nothing.")

I suspect that no Jew or Muslim looks at the Mosque on the Temple Mount and thinks, "Gosh, those Muslims really are such accomodationists by building on the site of the Jewish Temple." Um, nope. I suspect that the Muslims rejoice that their real estate choice shows their superiority over the Jews. And I think that the reasons the Mosque irks many Jews (and many Christians) is that we think, "But, our God is greater than yours! It stinks that we're not the victorious ones!"

I asked Kellsey to marry me on October 1st. A year before on October 1st I broke up with her. My choosing Oct 1 for our date of engagement was deliberate and calculated: I wanted to redeem the day, to say, "From now on, October 1st will be a good day". Granted, by bringing attention to that date, we will always remember the "bad" Oct 1. But the memory of that date will now forever be in the context of, "But we didn't stay broken up!" We might remember the bad day, but always with the sweetness of the victory over that day in light of the following October 1.

I assert that the early church behaved the same way in picking their "Let's Celebrate Jesus' Birth!" Day. The early Christians were neither ignorant, stupid nor underhanded in their choosing the 25th as a date. They knew it was a big Pagan day: They'd been Pagans! i.e. Nobody said, "Oh, dang! I was carrying the wrong calendar when we set that date! Why didn't you remind me that it was Saturnalia?"

They knew that their choosing the date would send a meaningful message to themselves and their world. The message, like mine in choosing Oct 1, and the Muslims in topping the Temple Mount was, "Our new celebration trumps the old one. We now take this date as our own as a sign of the superiority of our celebration." i.e. Nobody said, "What does the date matter? Just pick something convenient. Any date is as good as another. Nobody cares when it is."

And it's not something they were just going to sneak into the cultural calendar, somehow capitalizing on the Pagan Festival's momentum to jump start they're their own parties. I can see it now . . . the early church planning committee meeting:
Chair - "How are we going to get folks to our Jesus party?"
Member A - "Well, everyone's already partying on Dec 25th. Can we capitalize on that?"
Member B - "What if we all go to John's Pagan Party, then just start praising Jesus in the middle of it? We'll just turn their party into ours! They'll never know!"
Treasurer - "Yeah, and that way, we'll save costs by not having to buy our own party food!"
Member C - "And if we praise Jesus loudly enough, the Pagans might do it too, even though they'd think they were still partying Pagan Style!"
Member A - "Man, this is going to make evangelism so easy!"
Chair - "Excellent! Next week we'll take on the question: How should we incorporate a bunny into Eastertide? Meeting adjourned!"
Nope.

So bring on the Dec 25 date! Take that, pagans. Our Church Fathers & Mothers kicked your forefathers & mothers collective [redacted]!

Edited to show that I really do understand how contractions work.

Why I'm not bothered by America's Christmas
or "How I learned to stop worrying and love the Mall."

Dad made some interesting points in his post below, which prompt me to share some of my thinking on the upcoming Day of Celebration.
First, a comment about some enemies of a life of devotion to Christ, aka a Devotional Life or, if you like, a Spiritual Life. Two big enemies are Busyness and Stuff. Not that there aren't appropriate times & places to be busy and to have stuff. But I think that two big tensors we experience during Christmastime are that we get increasingly Busy and we participate in a process to accumulate Stuff.

For these two reasons, I've generally been down on American Christmastime. Until this Christmas. For the first time, I've been on the retail side of this equation as well as on the consumer side. I'm on both sides of the cash register, if you will. And one thing that occurred to me a few weeks ago was that this whole glut of consumption is driven by the desire to give a gift. I'll put a stake in the ground here: the desire to give a gift is a good desire.

Of course, this desire gets shaped by unhelpful motivations or misinformed by advertising. Sure it does. So what? When I watch people at the Carts, I watch folks laugh, then think of someone they know and you can read their expressions, "Oh, Johhny will love this! It will make him laugh!" They might then move on to, "And then, while Johhny's laughing, I'll ask him for a raise!" That's trouble, but it's not a problem endemic to Christmastime. It's a broken human problem.

I think that, in general, the rush and expendetures in the Christmas season have at their root the desire to give a gift, which is to give someone a blessing. So I'm thankful for much of what is going on in the retail sector. It'd be nice if more of it went on around the Carts, but that's another thing.

Another thing I realized is that, at least in the retail world, Christmastime is the economic engine for our country. So we live in a country where a major part of its economic success comes from the desire to give gifts. That is, to bless someone else. I think that this is remarkable! (See, I'm remarking on it.) And I'm not ready to buy the argument - "If we didn't have Christmas as retail spike, the general consumption of the USA would just be spread more evenly across the year." I think there's much to be said on the critical mass that is generated by the once a year gift giving moment.

So we get stuff as a result of it. So what? It's not whether you have stuff or not, it's what you do with your stuff that's significant. And I don't mean that the only significant suff-act is divestment of stuff. This can be just as self-centered as the accumulation of stuff.

So it's stuff we might not need. So what? They're gifts. Also, there is a place in God's economy for beauty (even if Beautiful Object has no other function than to be beautiful) and enjoyment (even if Enjoyable Object has no other function than to bring pleasure). (Yeah, you could argue that beauty and pleasure are needs, but you know what I mean here.)

I'm less bothered by this activity at Christmastime than I've ever been. I used to be completely turned off by walking through a mall at this time. All I saw was gluttony, triviality, and the inferiority of everyone around me who "just didn't get it" like I did. Last weekend though, when I was in the biggest and busiest mall in the DFW area I saw people who were looking for things which with to bless others, I saw store employees who were making a living and providing for themselves and families, I saw store owners who were employing those folks as well as for providing for their own families.

(Another thing I've thought about is the difference between the social value of something "homemade" and something "store bought". I think I'll save that for another post.)

Not that I've licked the enemies of my own soul in Busyness & Stuff. Hardly. But it isn't a Christmastime problem. It's a me problem. I have the same problems during the Fourth of July, Summer Solstice, and my birthday. I'm grateful that at least during Christmastime I get reminded about the Incarnation of the Son.

Thanks to Joe Moore for the insight into the enemies of a Spiritual Life. I'm sure he'd be the first to say that they weren't his to begin with, but that doesn't matter to me. I heard it from him first. Two shout outs to Joe in a week! Are you listening, Joe? I'm giving you a "Woo," "Woo."

Humbug!!

I was speaking yesterday with a friend of mine on the phone, and he told me that it was difficult in his family right now because his children wanted to know why there so much Christmas at this time of the year and so little Hannuka. (He and his family are Jewish, obviously.) He was a little surprised when I said that we had a somewhat similar problem in our family, because much that passes for "Christmas" during this season is really not Christian at all, at least in our view, but really pagan. The date, as you know, is a Roman holiday, Saturnalia, (by the way, did you know that the Romans killed Jesus? I bet you someone told you it was the Jews), that the Christmas tree is from the Druids, who delighted in human sacrifice, and that the gifts are from Toys-R-Us. (If you read the New Testament carefully, you will see that the Wise Men, who brought gifts to Jesus, did not come at his birth but as long as two years later. There were not three of them - we don't know know how many they were - and they were not kings. There was a gift when Jesus was born, however, it was a gift of God from God to us, as Christians view it.)

So its difficult for Christian families during this season as well, maybe more difficult than Jewish families, difficult to penetrate the noise, the glitter, the conflicting and often destructive traditions, and to figure out what this is all really about. I would think that Christmas is a good time for Jewish families to reclaim a sense of who they are, in contrast to what Main Street is selling, and I think it is also a good time for Christians to do that. I would say, however, that the Jews are at somewhat of an advantage here, because it obvious that the American culture is not masquerading as a Jewish culture. It is masquerading as a Christian culture, however, and has taken a lot of Christians in. Jesus is not the reason for the Season, as many of my co-religionists assert. To be very honest, there are other reasons for the Season, none of them having to do with Messiah, and I, for one, am not happy about them.

"The Final Analysis" aka "The Paradoxical Commandments".

Carol and I went to a Christmas part a few days ago for one of the companies we represent. There was a door prize given for whoever could identify the author of this poem. Its a pretty good one, although most of the time I don't want to do whatever its says "anyway".

Re-Calibrating

Perhaps it's unnecessary, but even the best running machines need to be fine tuned periodically.

Lurkers to K&K: now's the time when you can post your first comment, as everyone is on equal footing with this one.

And now the calibration (aka, discovering the rhetorical norm for the Kith & Kin blog):

A = A

Comment away!

UPDATE 12.23.05: See? That's why I love this blog. We actually comment on A=A. It doesn't matter how trivial or self-evident it is, Kith&Kin bring their wisdom and snarkiness to bear! And if we comment on A=A, we really let loose on A>B or C<>PB&J. Thanks for a very fun year of posts and comments to all K&Kers. For you lurkers out there, jump on in at any time!

For Brian: I feel your pain. Maybe not all of it, as I don't have twins, in addition to Aidan. But some of it. Would you believe 1/3 of it? 1/4th? :-)

More on beating Napoleon
Sure, there's a lot to say on why Napoleon lost at Waterloo beyond just that he was defeated by Wellington. But the French Army had already been driven back to Waterloo at that point. Wellington and the British Army drove the French Army all the way back to France from a tiny strip of land on the West Coast of Portugal.

Napoleon had swept all of Europe, handily defeating the Spanish and Portugese, before finally hitting the wall that was the British Infantry. Napoleon used his infantry to march en masse over other armies. Other armies broke and ran at the sheer mass of Frenchmen. Since his army was a conscript army, Napoleon simply accepted the losses it took to overwhelm his enemies.

At that time, the English were the only army to practice with live ammunition, and were the most well disciplined army in the world, able to fire and reload their muskets faster than anyone. When Napoleon met the British, he met his first fully trained enemy. The British lines, by and large, did not break, and their "platoon fire" decimated the French army. Platoon Fire: the line of infantry fired in sequence, by platoon, with the first platoon reloaded and firing by the time the last platoon discharged.

In addition to their lines of muskets, the British also used rifles, which Napoleon thought were a waste of time. At the time, infantry used muskets, which could be reloaded quickly (easy to shove the cartridge down) but were inaccurate. If you fired a bunch of muskets together, all pointed in the same direction, the effect was pretty good, though. Hence, the what seems to us strange strategy of lining up all together and firing all at once.

When your main infantry strategy is to simply overwhelm with sheer numbers, it doesn't make sense to take the time to train someone to use a slower loading, more difficult to handle weapon like a rifle. So Napoleon dismissed the Rifle as an ineffective weapon for war.

The British Army, however, already had a culture of rigorous training and used live ammunition. The latter would be an important value to have if you're going to think about using a rifle, the whole point of which is to get good at hitting something. With a musket, all you need to be able to do is reload quickly and point in the right direction. You can practice this without ammunition, as many armies did. The British saw the importance of getting used to the explosive noise, kick and smoke generated by firing the things. But with a rifle, it's even more important to use live ammo, as you'd better be able to check if you are, indeed, hitting something.

The British created Rifle Regiments who would range out in front of their lines as the other army's infantry lines approached. The Rifles would pick off officers & noncoms so that when the two lines of muskets finally met, the other army would already have lost its leadership.

I think that these two approaches to war say something about the two cultures who were clashing. And I think that the British won because their culture's values shaped their - superior - approach to fighting.

I am indebted to Bernard Cornwell and his series on the fictional Richard Sharpe, who, like his naval counterpart, Horatio Hornblower, educated me in the Napoleonic Era British Army values, tactics, and battles. I am also indebted to Joe Moore, who told me, repeatedly, that I would like Sharpe & his adventures. He was so right!

Puzzled with Mexico. Is this MSM at work again, except in the immigration area? Is there really such widespread righteous indignation in Mexico over our wanting a little respect for our borders? I don't know if the wall thing works or not, but isn't there a problem here? What kind of friends are these?

Follow up: Why did Napolean Lose?

Here's a British take on the question.

Laying Waste to Iran without Firing a Single Shot.

(The idea I will hereinafter describe I have heretofore broached in a comment to an earlier post. It is such a brilliant idea that it begs to be hoisted to its very own post.)

The idea is to have our bombers fly over Iran and drop thousand of iPods on the country, with little parachutes. The iPods will be color coded and the colors will relate to particular kinds of music. There will be a color for little kids, another color for teens, another color for young adults, etc. The sorts of music on an iPod of a given color will suit the "demographic" that corresponds to the color.

Following up on this, the US would hoist a satillite that will sit in orbit above Iran and provide free broadband. The second wave of bombers will drop those cheap laptops everyone is talking about, which will be able to connect with the satillite.

The broadband will also, of course, be able to send podcasts to the iPods.

Finally, the bombers will drop batteries and battery chargers appropriate to the country and the electronics previously dropped.

I cannot imagine that this would cost us any more than it would to invade the country. And the loss of life would be minimal.

Today's "Duh" Award Goes to . . .

This creep.

Rehabilitating the French.

Lookaheah.

Haiku #2

Though he can jump o’er
A couch, this wahoo must not
Know what to jump for.

Haiku #1

You had two servings,
But left me wondering what
You’re really thinking.

T-Shirt Seen at Same Gun Show.

Christian
American
Heterosexual
Pro-Gun
Conservative
Any Questions?

Sign at this Weekend's Coconut Grove Gun Show.

"French Army Rifle for Sale: Like new. Never been fired. Dropped once."

Where's Jesus?
Link to my blog for (what I think) is a cute and interesting interaction between my daughter and Rachelle.

What do you mean, the MSM doesn't give us a straight story on Iraq?
I'm shocked, shocked!

A post from a newly embedded journalist in Iraq:

I’m a journalist. I read the news everyday, from several sources. I have the luxury of reading stuff newspapers don’t always have room to print. I read every tidbit I could on Iraq and the war before coming.

Everything I thought I knew was wrong.

Maybe not wrong, but certainly different than the picture in my head.

Freedom from Relationships; Freedom through Relationships. Over the last two days, I have been listening to the latest tape from Mars Hill Audio, to which "audio magazine" I have subscribed for many years and which source of listening pleasure I heartily recommend.

In one conversation, Ken Myer, the "host", and his guest said something that really struck me. They said that relationships can liberate and not restrict. I have been carrying around that thought all morning.

Often I feel bogged down by the responsibilities imposed by so many relationships in my life. Maybe its a guy thing, but I would really prefer to be left alone most of the time. Maybe all the time. I think, however, that this is part of my fallen nature and not just my male nature. (On the other hand, if Eve had left Adam alone, then maybe things would have turned out better. But I guess Adam was hanging around Eve at the time. Now why in the world was that?)

But right relationships do liberate. Now and then my secretary, Jessica, doesn't come in, for one good reason or another. When she is absent, I sense her absence continuously as I work through the day, even if I am not conscious of it continuously. There is an element of relief with that sense. I am free of her. But in terms of getting my work done, discharging my responsibilities to my clients, I am confined by the lack of assistance. I am not free to do my best work. My relationship with Jessica, then, liberates me as a lawyer. This is a very simple example, of course, but I think it illustrates the principle.

Of course, we all need to be left alone sometimes. Jesus certainly had that need, and he took the time to be by himself. Those times, of course, were when he nourished THE relationship, that with the Father. He was most confined on the cross, when he was "liberated" from even that relationship.

Thanks, Drudge.

Fresh Air? You've Got To Be Kidding. NPR has an interview show called "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross, originating in Philadelphia. Yesterday Gross interviewed Bart Erdman, who she said is chairman of the religious studies department at UNC-Chapel Hill. He just published a book called "Misquoting Jesus".

Erdman described himself as an "agnostic". On the one hand, he described the Bible as the greatest book of Western Civilization. On the other hand, he recited the tired old criticisms of its being full of contradictions and largely irrelevant, at least on more direct issues, such as homosexuality, just war and the like. And, of course, every writer of a New Testament book has a different idea of Jesus. This is "fresh"?

Of course, we want the Bible to be the greatest book of Western civilization, don't we Bart? It helps maintain you in the favored position as tenured professor at Chapel Hill. Then, just to be sure that you can maintain that position among the elites at such places, let's undermine its influence and relevance. I really don't know how one can hold that the Bible is "great" and then hold that it is full of lies and myths. But I guess that's what it means to be "post-modern", and certainly you want to be so "now".

This is not to mention the stewardship of those responsible for the faculty of UNC-CH, who take taxpayer money and spend it on these people so that the children of taxpayers are subjected to this kind of propaganda.

There is, of course, a special sort of perversity in publishing this book at Christmastime and presenting such an interview on NPR when most other radio stations are broadcasting Christmas carols. But we are used to that sort of thing; its nothing "fresh" at all, just contemptible.

U2 Charlotte - AWESOME!

Lewis Doctrine: Liberation (link for WSJ subscribers).

Here's a few snippets from an article on Bernard Lewis, the British-born Princeton University historian who was one of the intellectual fathers of the Bush administration policy of Mideast transformation.

Mr. Lewis's concern is less about insurgent and terrorist violence and more about growing U.S. domestic opposition to President Bush's Iraq engagement. "I would describe my position as one of cautious optimism," he says in an interview. "My optimism derives from events in the Mideast and my caution derives from observing the United States."

Mr. Lewis adds, "Enable them to achieve or recover their freedom, to which they are entitled no less than anyone in the world. … Our job is not to create democracy. Our job is to remove obstacles and let them create their own."

For all the problems the Bush administration has faced in Iraq, however, Mr. Lewis believes the region and the world are better off now than before the war. "Despite internal difficulties and external sabotage, the process of democratization has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams," he says.

Mr. Lewis believes change in Iraq has also been in no small part responsible for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon and democratic progress there, and "glimmerings" of change in Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Joe Lieberman recently added (also quoted in WSJ editorial), "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will [in Iraq]...It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Opposition parties, please move on. Offer up something constructive.

Where arrogance can get you.

I enjoy following the Miami Dolphins professional football team. I don't have season tickets, but I try to catch them on TV and on the radio when I can, and then I listen to the sportstalk shows, which are just about the lowest form of mass communication thus far invented. You may be surprised to know that I find the Dolphins much more interesting to follow now than they were during the Marino years. The team's struggles create a lot of drama, and how the players and coaches deal with adversity is worth the attention. With Nick Saban as their new coach this year, they have become particularly fun to follow. Saban is a thoroughly competent, no-nonsense guy, and he really doesn't seem to care much what the various sports "journalists" think, and I definitely like that. And he is doing a great job.

The Dolphins beat San Diego Sunday and I got to watch the first half and about 4 minutes of the second half before "life" interrupted. San Diego was a two touchdown favorite, after a slow start they had become one of the NFL's "hot" teams, and everyone was looking forward not to the Dolphins game but the game with the undefeated Colts, the game the week following the game with the Fins. As I began watching the Dolphins game, I could see the arrogance in the San Diego players as they roughed up the dolphins pretty well that first quarter. Perhaps the most obvious acts of contempt that the Chargers committed were the two fourth down plays that they ran instead of punting. The first time they made the first down. As San Diego got ready to run a fourth down play a second time, the TV commentators, who had talked about the Dolphins with a sort of gentle disdain, said that calling such play again on fourth down was an insult to the Dolphins. And it turned out to be a "down too far". When San Diego failed to make the first down, I thought that it could be the game's turning point, and I believe it was. The Dolphins went on to win, an "improbable victory" as I heard the talking heads say. I also thought it a lesson in what arrogance can do to talent. What hard work and staying focused can do for the underdog. What a few small stones can do to a giant.

I see arrogance all the time. All the time. I don't talk about my cases often on the blog, for obvious reasons, but we have a recent case in our office where a lawyer's arrogance led his client into years of expensive litigation that is still ongoing. The lawyer was excellent in one area of the law, but not so good in the area where we practice, and the outcome was inevitable.

Regarding the work you are doing, do you feel like you are just hanging on by your fingernails? That's my usual mode of self-evaluation. I have just no idea how I manage year after year to practice law well enough to pay the mortgage. (Well, I do have an idea: the grace of God.) The "hanging by one's fingernails" point of view is probably not a bad working image to carry around in one's head most of the time. I'm not depressed by that image - it probably works for me. Not only does it "work", its probably the right image.

Our Friday morning breakfast group has been in the midst of the Book of Job for about 16 years. (Well, it seems like 16 years. Our leader, Austin, finds it so fascinating that he won't let go of it.) We have concluded (we are hardly the first so to conclude) that Job's problem, finally, was pride. He was proud to be righteous. He was crafting a life that approached perfection - his own life. That pursuit was the focus of his attention. But God is a jealous God, and so he deals with Job as he does.

Go Dolphins!

Pat Talbot. I think I have posted about my Friday morning breakfast Bible Study. Patrick Talbot, a lawyer who had been our group since I began years ago, moved with his family last summer to Pohang, South Korea, to teach at the Hangdong International Law School. I received a Christmas letter from his wife, Kathy, which was great to read. Take a look at the website for the university and then find your way to the law school and, finally, to Pat's bio under the faculty tab.

9:55 p.m.
As the Sunday night in all its anxiousness and lonliness stretches on, I find myself craving some prayer from the kith and kin community. We have dabbled some in the way or prayer requests previously on this blog, but this could be the first outright, bulletin-ready list. It's short, don't worry, and not too grave. I do live a truly blessed life. It is completely self-indulgent, however; but if we're not entitled to that in prayer, then where can it happen?

1. That I would continue to understand just how it is I should seek first the kingdom.
2. That I would begin to have some idea of where to go and what to do next.
3. That God would bring around that guy I outlined on my list sooner rather than later.

Thanks, folks. I look forward to the blessing of your prayers.

Iraq News
read the whole thing at Strategypage, but while you wait, I'll cherry pick it for you. (Kith & Kin is a full-service blog, don'tcha know!)

If it weren't for Internet access to troops, expatriates and Iraqis in Iraq, you would think that coalition military operations in Iraq were a major disaster, and that prompt withdrawal was the only reasonable course of action. But the mass media view of the situation is largely fiction, conjured up in editorial offices outside Iraq, with foreign reporters in Iraq (most of them rarely leaving their heavily guarded hotels) providing color commentary, and not much else. So what do the troops and Iraqis say?
*snip*
First, there is definitely a terrorism problem. Not an insurgency, not a guerilla war, not a resistance.
*snip*
Second, there is a cultural crises, in the Arab world in particular, and the Moslem world in general.
*snip*
Third, the bad guys are really, really bad, but they have many prominent allies around the world. Most Iraqis cannot understand how so many media outlets in the West can keep giving favorable coverage to the Sunni Arab terrorists. These guys are butchers, and many used to work for Saddam, committing the same kind of mayhem. Yet these European reporters come looking for Sunni Arab "victims" of "American imperialism." How strange is that? Nothing strange, just another cultural quirk. The Europeans are much more risk averse than Americans. We all remember the 1930s, where most of Europe left Hitler alone, hoping that they could talk sense into him, or that he would go away.
*snip*
lastly, we have the major differences between the media version of what's going on, and the military one. The media are looking for newsworthy events (bad news preferred, good news does not sell, and news is a business). The military sees it as a process, a campaign, a series of battles that will lead to a desired conclusion. The event driven media have a hard time comprehending this process stuff, but it doesn't really matter to them, since the media lives from headline to headline. For the military, the campaign in Iraq has been a success. The enemy, the Sunni Arabs, have been determined and resourceful. But the American strategy of holding the Sunni Arabs at bay, while the Kurds and Shia Arabs built a security force capable of dealing with the Sunni Arab terrorists, has worked. But that's good news, and thus not news. But every terrorist attack by Sunni Arabs is news, and gets reported with intensity and enthusiasm.

I just picked out the thesis points of the paragraphs, so if you take issue with one, please go over and read the paragraph before commenting. Thanks!

"I'm very suprised how religious the British people are --
they celebrate Christmas a month ahead,"

commented Art Hartounian, a member of Iraq's first Boy Band, Unknown To No One.

He said this upon arriving in England to train for his band's debut. The article about the band was on the front page of today's WSJ.

I guess that's one way to look at it. :-)

Freedom

"The concept of freedom as man's rightful claim and due is equally contradictory and impossible. So is the thought of man 's acquiring freedom by earning it or buying it at any price. The idea that man can conquer freedom as God's antagonist and defiantly wrench it from Him is untenable. Man has no real will power. Nor does he get it by himself. His power lies in receiving and in appropriating God's gift. The event of man's freedom is the event of his thankfulness for the gift, of his sense of responsibility as a receiver, of his loving care for what is given him. It is his reverence before the free God who accepts him as His partner without relinquishing His sovereignty. This event alone is the event of freedom."

Rules, or not

"Ethics must be understood as the attempt, scientific or otherwise, to cope with the question of good and evil in human behavior. Ethics according to our assumptions can only be evangelical ethics. The question of good and evil is never answered by man's pointing to the authoritative Word of God in terms of a set of rules. It is never discovered by man or imposed on the self and others as a code of good and evil actions, a sort of yardstick of what is good and evil. Holy Scripture defies being forced into a set of rules; it is a mistake to use it as such."

Karl Barth, "The Gift of Freedom," in The Humanity Of God.

I Rest My Case.

More on why tigers kill people.

Breaking News

According to Trivial Pursuit, tigers have killed over 1 million people in Asia over the last four hundred years.

Where's the outrage in the MSM? I'll be the voice of the eaten.

Petra Retires!
Read about it at their website here.

Man, we listened to a lot of Petra growing up. And as much as I like to poke fun at them these days, I really did enjoy listening to them in Junior High and High School. See? I'm not afraid to admit it. So now, let us not speak ill of the dead! Petra was the gateway drug for me to get into rock & roll, both Xtian and Secular.

And, btw, did you know that their final album was nominated for a Grammy? Did you know they had a recent album? I didn't.

I Can't Resist Posting this Photo.



Aidan and I got together this weekend.

news from the front: Embedded blogger Bill Roggio reports on the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment and it's securing of the Haditha Dam in Iraq.

Funny!
despair.com launched their new website yesterday. Go check it out!

Especially check out the new streaming videos available. Morgan makes an appearance in one of them.

Iraq again
It's been a while since I've posted on the Iraq war, or the Global War On Terror (GWOT). But mostly that's because I haven't had anything new to say about it since I last posted. I still think it was and is the right and justified thing to do. I'm taking this break from my normally scheduled silence on the matter to note two things.

One: I am so glad that Bush is finally strongly articulating the reasons to stay & work in Iraq. I happened to be in the car on the way to San Antonio during his speech yesterday, so I got to hear it live and in its entirety. It was a good speech. I was actually moved to tears a couple of times in it. (Though my general level of fatigue and the caffiene coursing through my veins probably contributed to my emotional state.)

Two: No, seriously, there is absolutely no moral equivalence between what we've done and are doing in Iraq, even with all the mistakes we've made along the way, and what Iraq was like under Saddam's reign. This point was brought home to me, again, by this article by John Leo. Leo writes about John Burns, "the great NYTimes reporter" who savages the Western Media in being complicit in Saddam's terror and oppression of his own people.

Burns, who has covered China, the Soviet Union, Afghanistan and Bosnia, says the terror of Saddam Hussein's Iraq was unmatched anywhere in the world, except perhaps by North Korea today. Iraq was a vast slaughterhouse, he says, but most Western reporters worked hard to keep the news from getting out because they were afraid of losing access or getting expelled from Iraq. The monstrous savagery of life under Saddam -- the vast tortures and up to a million dead -- was "the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents," he writes.
He says of Iraq: "We now know that this place was a lot more terrible than even people like me had thought. They (reporters) rationalized it away."

Though President Bush chose to make weapons of mass destruction his principal argument against Saddam, Burns writes, "this war could have been justified any time on the basis of human rights alone. This was a grotesque charnel house, and also a genuine threat to us. We had the power to end it and we did end it."

Even if as many as 5,000 Iraqis died in the war, Burns writes, that's fewer than would have died if Saddam's killing machine had gone on as usual during the six-week period of battle. The war should have been justified on this basis, he says, "but you'd never have known it by reading most of the coverage of the war by those correspondents."