As for his speech on Thursday night, it felt long. It felt like it was written by committee as it seemed all over the place. I was looking for the national defense angle of the speech and there were a few obligatory lines about it but it simply didn't inspire me to trust him with that issue.
No doubt, the Bush administration has made errors on the Iraq situation. However, I'm not hearing what would be materially different under a Kerry administration. And what I am hearing actually makes me think they will make it worse by not taking it seriously.
Edwards in Wednesday night's speech had a very strong line: And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you.
Where was that kind of resolve in the Kerry speech?
I don't like being a one-issue voter but that is what it has come down to for me.
Yes, I wish the Bushies and the GOP took more seriously the whole fiscal mess in DC and restrain spending. I wish they were more sophisticated in their "PR" with the other nations of the world and here in the USA.
But the bottom line is this: there are people out there who if given less than 1/2 a chance would kill as many Americans as possible. And if what is happening in Iraq says anything, Americans aren't the only targets.
Kerry war re-enactment story?
You do have to give credit to Sen. Kerry for serving in Vietnam. He was there. He could have been injured or killed in an accident or in combat. For that willingness to go, all fairness says, thank you for your service.
What are we to make of this story?
It says that Kerry filmed his exploits in Vietnam and sometimes would return to the scene of the action to re-enact it.
Is this true? Is there some confirmation of this story?
If true, it paints Kerry as a very unseemly ambitious person with an inflated sense of his own destiny.
What are we to make of this story?
It says that Kerry filmed his exploits in Vietnam and sometimes would return to the scene of the action to re-enact it.
Is this true? Is there some confirmation of this story?
If true, it paints Kerry as a very unseemly ambitious person with an inflated sense of his own destiny.
Politics as preaching
I was very tired on Monday night so when I got home and turned on the tv to view the Democratic Convention, I soon was asleep. I had the tv on briefly on Tuesday night before dashing off to meet a friend for dinner. I caught most of the Obama speech.
He definitely has a great American story and charismatic speaking style. The post-speech pundits gushed that we have just seen a star blaze across the political scene. I have to say that Sullivan makes some good points but I also have to say, it would seem that he has "drank the Kool-Aide" the last couple of days.
Obama has the rhythm and cadence of revival style preaching down. As I listened, my goodness, if he gave that speech in the Republican Convention it would go over well. Heck, for that matter, if he gave that at a church, the audience would be shouting, amen, preach it.
In the end, his speech seemed more about life in general rather than any specific political viewpoint. I mean, how could anyone object to what he was saying?
He definitely has a great American story and charismatic speaking style. The post-speech pundits gushed that we have just seen a star blaze across the political scene. I have to say that Sullivan makes some good points but I also have to say, it would seem that he has "drank the Kool-Aide" the last couple of days.
Obama has the rhythm and cadence of revival style preaching down. As I listened, my goodness, if he gave that speech in the Republican Convention it would go over well. Heck, for that matter, if he gave that at a church, the audience would be shouting, amen, preach it.
In the end, his speech seemed more about life in general rather than any specific political viewpoint. I mean, how could anyone object to what he was saying?
UPDATE: 14 Syrians on the plane were musicians
A few days back I heard about and blogged the story of the Jacobsen's and their observing 14 Syrians on their flight.
The mystery has been mostly resolved.
Excerpts:
The mystery has been mostly resolved.
Excerpts:
The Syrian "musicians" really were musicians, and though their behavior was odd, reporter Clint Taylor, who got to the bottom of a story that baffled the New York Times, observes:Not surprisingly, the just released 9/11 report is become a political football. It was inevitable that that would be the case given the timing of the work just prior to the election. Hopefully, the useful parts will get implemented and the political thunder and lightening will be over soon.
Nour Mehana's band might have acted like jerks on the plane, but it appears safe to say they were not casing Northwest Airlines for a suicidal assault, and we can quit worrying about this being a "dry run" or an aborted attack. And if Jacobsen was wondering why one man in a dark suit and sunglasses sat in first class while everyone else flew coach, well, it seems pretty clear that this was the Big Mehana himself.
......
Evidently no one even engaged these guys in a conversation, and no one, not the flight crew, and not the air marshals, challenged their egregious violations of protocols about congregating near restrooms or standing up in unison as the plane started its descent. Nothing was done to alleviate the terror Jacobsen, and probably a lot of the other passengers, felt.
Hollywood Bowl Pictures
During the offseason from last year, they fixed up the shell and made a bunch of other technical upgrades.
Finally went to the newly renovated Hollywood Bowl to see the event last Sunday night. The Joffrey Ballet did Nutcracker Act 2 (costumes were lovely and I am always amazed at the blend of grace and strength in ballet) and Pictures of the Exhibition with fireworks was the closing number. The audience was treated to two encores: Sabre Dance and Sleigh Ride.
Don't just tell me, show me!
I aim to please!!
Finally went to the newly renovated Hollywood Bowl to see the event last Sunday night. The Joffrey Ballet did Nutcracker Act 2 (costumes were lovely and I am always amazed at the blend of grace and strength in ballet) and Pictures of the Exhibition with fireworks was the closing number. The audience was treated to two encores: Sabre Dance and Sleigh Ride.
Don't just tell me, show me!
I aim to please!!
Teens: they are doing better but I still worry about them
Went to Instapundit and saw this post where Reynolds links to an article he wrote over at TCS where there is a discussion on how teens are doing. Stats are showing good trends: reduction in teen crime, teen drug use and teen pregnancy and (gasp!) higher regard for family and their parents. Here are some excerpts:
I am a volunteer with the junior high youth group at my church and so I'm looking at the generation after the one described in these essays.
When I'm with them, I do have a sense of hope for them. I have to say, these kids do have some advantages: they have one or two parents who are taking them to church and most are doing well in school.
As any reader of this blog knows, I believe in the virtue of organized religion, in my case Christianity. It provides a way at looking at life, it provides ethics, there is hope and there is a community. Organized religion, of course, is imperfect and critiques of religion will always say that. But what is the alternative? Are kids better off without it? Are we better off without it?
When done right, religion is a positive force in the lives of people and society.
But back to the teens I hang out with. I am hopeful for them that they will make good choices in life. Yet, it is still scary because they are exposed to a lot of stuff I wasn't when I was their age. It is easy to worry about them and to some extent we should. But what can we do but try our best to share with them and model the values that will help them be happy and succeed in life? But what can we do but love and accept them for all the ups and downs that are inevitable during the teen years?
The question is, why are teens doing better? I think there are two answers. First, people noticed problems, and tried a lot of different approaches. Private organizations, church groups, schools, and -- especially -- parents started taking a greater role in educating teenagers and encouraging better behavior. As with teen pregnancy, no single policy solved the problem, but multiple approaches tended to make it better until something seen as insoluble just a few years ago began to look, well, solved.In his post Reynolds linked to his fellow writer at TCS, Glassman who writes:
........
The other reason for the improvement is simple learning. Parents -- who in the 1960s and 1970s thought they could pursue self-centered lifestyles without harming their kids -- learned that parenting isn't to be taken for granted. Likewise, teenagers gradually noticed things that were easy to miss when the culture of drugs and adolescent rebellion was new. However they look at age 17, the "cool" rebels tend to do worse later in life, and the geeks tend to do better. Just as smelly, desperate crackheads were the best anti-drug advertisement ever presented in the inner cities (far more persuasive than frying-egg commercials on television), so did unemployed loser guys and unwed welfare moms provide visible good reasons to stay in school, make good grades, and be careful about pregnancy.
Extra! Extra! The big news of the past decade in America has been largely overlooked, and you'll find it shocking. Young people have become aggressively normal.I'm heartened by all this good news. Since these studies were done in the 90s, I hope the trend continues into the 00s!
Violence, drug use and teen sex have declined. Kids are becoming more conservative politically and socially. They want to get married and have large families. And, get this, they adore their parents.
The Mood of American Youth Survey found that more than 80 percent of teenagers report no family problems -- up from about 40 percent a quarter-century ago. In another poll, two-thirds of daughters said they would "give Mom an 'A.'
"In the history of polling, we've never seen tweens and teens get along with their parents this well," says William Strauss, referring to kids born since 1982. Strauss is author, with Neil Howe, of "Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation."
I am a volunteer with the junior high youth group at my church and so I'm looking at the generation after the one described in these essays.
When I'm with them, I do have a sense of hope for them. I have to say, these kids do have some advantages: they have one or two parents who are taking them to church and most are doing well in school.
As any reader of this blog knows, I believe in the virtue of organized religion, in my case Christianity. It provides a way at looking at life, it provides ethics, there is hope and there is a community. Organized religion, of course, is imperfect and critiques of religion will always say that. But what is the alternative? Are kids better off without it? Are we better off without it?
When done right, religion is a positive force in the lives of people and society.
But back to the teens I hang out with. I am hopeful for them that they will make good choices in life. Yet, it is still scary because they are exposed to a lot of stuff I wasn't when I was their age. It is easy to worry about them and to some extent we should. But what can we do but try our best to share with them and model the values that will help them be happy and succeed in life? But what can we do but love and accept them for all the ups and downs that are inevitable during the teen years?
Natural theology
Have recently been introduced to a concept called Natural Theology.
Regular Theology I guess would be derived from texts considered divine revelation like the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) or the Christian Scriptures (Old plus New Testaments). I figure the other major religions have theologies based on their revered texts.
Anyway, Natural Theology would be ideas about god apart from divine texts.
For instance, the existence of god in sacred texts is dogma and assumed and need not be argued for.
But can one argue for god apart from religious revelation?
In steps, Natural Theology.
It sounds like there are five notible arguments for god. I suppose there may be more.
Cosmological argument says the universe exists; thus, there is a creator = god.
Teleological argument says there is design in the universe; thus, there is a designer = god.
Ontological argument says that all cultures have a god concept; thus, there is some god that must exist for such a concept to be universal.
Moral argument says that the existance of the concept of good and evil within the human mind suggests a being who defines good and evil, i.e. god. Without god, good and evil is just personal preference.
Religious experience argument says in human history people have claimed to have interacted with god. Since these individuals were not deemed psychologically disturbed there maybe some validity to their experience.
Obviously, none of these things "prove" god's existence but they do make the god inference plausible. Also, none of these arguments make a particular religion's god more likely than another. Anyway, I thought it was fascinating that there is a whole field of philosophy that explores what we can know about god apart from divine revelation.
The interesting thing about Christianity and Judaism is that both have highly developed theologies and they have strong and necessary claims of historicity. The Jews have the Exodus as their pivotal moment of history. If the Exodus were to ever be proved to be a fabrication, the whole religion would collapse. Likewise, Christianity rests entirely on Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. If that were to ever be shown to be false, Christianity would cease.
All religions have ethics, doctrine and ritual. Interestingly, Judaism and Christianity also have key elements of historicity to their foundation. I'm not certain that other religions do?
In light of this, it makes sense that over the eons, the identity of Jesus would be the subject of controversy. If Christianity has any claim to being "true" then those who oppose Christianity would attack its foundation, Jesus. In this regard, the Di Vinci Code phenomena would be just the latest flavor of the month.
Without videotape evidence of Jesus' existence, I don't know if one can say that his claims are "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, it seems to me that between the testimony of the Christian Scriptures and the history of the church there is at least "probable cause" to support the claims of Jesus.
Regular Theology I guess would be derived from texts considered divine revelation like the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) or the Christian Scriptures (Old plus New Testaments). I figure the other major religions have theologies based on their revered texts.
Anyway, Natural Theology would be ideas about god apart from divine texts.
For instance, the existence of god in sacred texts is dogma and assumed and need not be argued for.
But can one argue for god apart from religious revelation?
In steps, Natural Theology.
It sounds like there are five notible arguments for god. I suppose there may be more.
Cosmological argument says the universe exists; thus, there is a creator = god.
Teleological argument says there is design in the universe; thus, there is a designer = god.
Ontological argument says that all cultures have a god concept; thus, there is some god that must exist for such a concept to be universal.
Moral argument says that the existance of the concept of good and evil within the human mind suggests a being who defines good and evil, i.e. god. Without god, good and evil is just personal preference.
Religious experience argument says in human history people have claimed to have interacted with god. Since these individuals were not deemed psychologically disturbed there maybe some validity to their experience.
Obviously, none of these things "prove" god's existence but they do make the god inference plausible. Also, none of these arguments make a particular religion's god more likely than another. Anyway, I thought it was fascinating that there is a whole field of philosophy that explores what we can know about god apart from divine revelation.
The interesting thing about Christianity and Judaism is that both have highly developed theologies and they have strong and necessary claims of historicity. The Jews have the Exodus as their pivotal moment of history. If the Exodus were to ever be proved to be a fabrication, the whole religion would collapse. Likewise, Christianity rests entirely on Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. If that were to ever be shown to be false, Christianity would cease.
All religions have ethics, doctrine and ritual. Interestingly, Judaism and Christianity also have key elements of historicity to their foundation. I'm not certain that other religions do?
In light of this, it makes sense that over the eons, the identity of Jesus would be the subject of controversy. If Christianity has any claim to being "true" then those who oppose Christianity would attack its foundation, Jesus. In this regard, the Di Vinci Code phenomena would be just the latest flavor of the month.
Without videotape evidence of Jesus' existence, I don't know if one can say that his claims are "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, it seems to me that between the testimony of the Christian Scriptures and the history of the church there is at least "probable cause" to support the claims of Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)